With all the brainwashed feminist bullshit about genders being exactly the same (except for scenarios in which women are better and men are apparently worse) here we have a thoroughly amusing example of just how poorly this perpetuated western world view works in reality.
The USA's own Olympic team for Women's ice hockey... Should do pretty well against the boys, right? When I first heard Milo Yiannopoulos mention this I thought he was joking... Surely they'd do okay? Nope. That's just your brainwashing talking. They got beaten in five separate matches with various High Schools. They used these matches to prepare for the Sochi Winter Olympics last year. Didn't hear about it? I wonder why.
This is also relevant to the idiotic assertions that the Women's UFC champion Rhonda Rousey is "pound for pound" the best fighter, male or female, in the world. This stupidity I have heard repeated to me by a female MMA fighter too... Who presumably should know better. Alas, the potency of feminist truth-distortion is amazing.
Men and women are different in a variety of ways, both physically and mentally. Refusing to educate yourself in these differences limits your effectiveness. Seek to be scientifically correct before being politically correct.
Don't believe the bullshit. Continue to challenge the mainstream thinking to discover the truth. To be your own man you must think your own thoughts. All else is not the path to being a more satisfied man but the path to a ruinous existence.
The report on it: http://nesn.com/2014/01/u-s-womens-olympic-hockey-team-preparing-for-sochi-games-by-playing-boys-high-school-teams-in-new-england/
Thanks to u/cptfizz for giving the source for the Serena Williams tennis example too (a few people keep mentioning it wondering who the guy was): "Karsten Braasch is a German former professional tennis player. His highest ATP singles ranking was World No. 38, which he reached in June 1994. His career-high in doubles was World No. 36, achieved in November 1997. He was well-noted for his service motion and his habit of smoking during changeovers. Braasch competed in a "Battle of the Sexes" contest against Venus Williams and Serena Williams at the 1998 Australian Open when he was ranked 203. A decade and a half older than the sisters, Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centred around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager." He nonetheless defeated both sisters, playing a single set against each, beating Serena 6–1 and Venus 6–2. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19980127&id=kqJjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mggGAAAAIBAJ&pg=3506,5011601"
I'm from the UK and fed up of constantly hearing about Womens Football (Soccer) and the various arguments about why its wrong that they don't earn as much or get the same respect as male footballers.
Anyone who knows anything about soccer and is not deluding themselves knows exactly why this is. It is because the professional male footballers earning the big money are the absolute elite at what they do. And millions of people worldwide are prepared to pay good money to watch sport played at that elite level. Like the OP story, Womens International level football is the equivalent of mens non-league football in terms of standard, skill and entertainment. There could NEVER, ever be a woman that could play soccer like Messi, Ronaldo etc. Or even to lower league standard. The same applies to any other male dominated sport or discipline. And that is an axiomatic fact.
I have no problem with women playing the same sports as men, good luck to them if thats what they want to do. But spectator sports are, by definition, there for the entertainment of the masses. I pay hundreds of pounds a year to watch Premier League football because its worth every penny. I wouldn't pay a fiver to watch womens football because it simply isn't anywhere near as entertaining. Its embarrassing, in fact. But the media here is constantly going on about how talented these
lesbianswomen are and why its unfair that they don't earn the same fame and fortune as the men.I could get onto female football fans as well here but that is another thread entirely.
Agreed man. You ever put on the womans world cup? Some of the games looked like any average game from a shitty town sunday league.
I've said it before. Take the best female football team in the world. Place them against any league 2 youth team. They would get destroyed.
It makes me laugh though how Sky Sports News are now championing womens football all the time and even have exclusive shows about it. But then most of their female presenters are stereotypical eye candy because of the vast majority male viewership.
I'm confident my old school football team would thrash any womens premier league side.
That's a big problem for women's sports.
Female fans aren't really fans. They're just women who like to be part of the social circle that male fans form. The women don't watch the sport because of the sport, but simply because of the entertainment of the group. They don't really give two fucks about what sport it is.
Another invasion of a male space
This... Actually makes a lot of sense.
There are exceptions to this. I know one girl, a bartender at the local spot, who was twice challenged to Seahawks team info/stats/players/etc by guys at the bar... She corrected a few of their stats, and shut 'em down pretty well. I was impressed.
Those are few and far between, though.
Sure they learn player names and stats. That's part of the social protocol for sports gatherings. Women are quite good at social protocols.
By that logic, you could say that about ~90% of male fans.
Possibly, they frequently lose to boys U-15 teams.
The U.S. Women's team played a Southern California high school team in a "closed scrimmage". They got fucking slaughtered.
Pretty sure the US women played the U-16 men's team and got roundly smashed, but you don't hear about that.
I did. I thought it was more exciting. Higher scoring games and less fake injuries.
At best it would be embarrassingly close.
snowflake regatta carnage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDvMBPZ5Bik&list=RDGRB2QTP8DpU&index=2
haha, I love how they are lost without a male, all yelling to everyone else what they should be doing.
Couldn't agree more. I love watching football, I live in Canada so I'm limited to only what they show on TV here (EPL mostly) I've played my entire life and would never say I'm amazing but I can hold my own. But man some of the women's teams were down right atrocious in terms of pace/switches/and set pieces. It was painful to watch.
The level of hamstering required to explain away the unpopularity of women's soccer... Is almost inspiring... Except it isn't.
When I played soccer I knew a girl who was... very good. But she was literally the only one of hundreds who also played... Terribly. What counts as excellent for women in soccer counts as just very good for men.
[permanently deleted]
Sport is in many ways a simulation for war and hunting... The skills you just described for success in football would also be required for success in war and hunting... So if one would assume a gender superiority in one... It would proclude a gender superiority in the other.
And yeah Rousey and Serena are the shit... But still no where near the top performing men. Serena knows this because she got beaten by other male tennis players who were only in like the too 200 for men, and Rousey knows this because she's presumably not retarded, trains with men, and refuses to fight a trans-gendered "woman"
Relatable story. Back in the days there was a famous female martial artist called Lucia Rijker. She was a Boxer/Kickboxer who was undefeated in both sports. Her boxing record when she retired was 17/0 and her kickboxing record was 37/0.
Anyways when she was at her peak people were losing their shit over her like they are over Rousey now and started talking about how she could beat a man and what not.
So they decided to make it happen. They got some no-name amateur thaiboxer to fight her (he is still unknown as shit, the only thing that comes up when you google him is his fight with Lucia Rijker). And as you might have guessed she got messed up badly. She lasted about 3 minutes with him in the ring before she got knocked out, all the while being dominated completely. There you go that is the best of the best female martial artist versus a random male thaiboxer of the same weight. The topic of women fighting men has since then been buried, until it was recently brought up again in the whole Mayweather vs Rousey thing.
There is a video on youtube of the fight if any of you are interested, but it's complete potato quality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsaTPtUl4vs
Edit.: Better quality https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2QgDWSfQik
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDvMBPZ5Bik&list=RDGRB2QTP8DpU&index=2
To be completely fair, she makes this claim by saying in a "no rules fight" she would kick his ass. She admits he would win in a boxing contest.
In a BBC interview at Wimbledon this year she claimed that she was the best in the world because she had beaten some other male tennis player once.
Her hamstering logic was:
Don't remember who it was she 'beat', whether it was a game or a set, or if it even happened. But there you go, that's hamstering.
Sports are a way of channeling competitive instincts into something harmless.
I'm a big Rhonda Rousey fan and she has a lot of physical and mental characteristics that make her able to succeed. But I don't think she is a total freak.
Her main advantage is that she started doing an activity intensely and with good coaching decades before it became popular. Thus she is now a large fish in a little pond.
EDIT: Serena on the other hand is a total freak
If there ever was a positive outcome of feminism I think Rhonda is it. Her whole "don't be a do nothing bitch" is basically an antigold digger and anti-lazy housewife mentality, which I can appreciate a lot. If you listen to her epiode on Joe Rogan yesterday, apparently there are women who actually believe their looks excuse their lack o knowledge, skills, or effort in other areas of their lives. I've had this argument before, Rhonda is a fucking badass. I'd even say she's pretty close to a red pill woman based on my limited knowledge of her in interviews and such.
Her Judo is extremely good though. That really helped her MMA.
I include her decades of Judo when I say "....she started doing an activity intensely and with good coaching decades before it became popular".
By "activity" I meant martial arts in general. As I understand it:
She was coached by her mum (a US Judo champion back in the day) from a young age. Random fights in the house it was just part of their family life. Rhonda became a judo champ herself culminating in getting bronze for the womens division in the 2010 Olympics. Then she switched to MMA. So ~22 years of Judo and then other martial arts
As a former collegiate soccer goalkeeper, let me say this. I was talented, but small built for a male. I would say I was probably an average, middle of the road goalkeeper, not good enough to start for a DI team, but good enough to be on the bench. If I had the same talent, but been a woman, I would have been beyond world class. I knew some female goalkeepers who were very good among women, and went on to play for DI schools, but were roughly equivalent to a decent 13-14 year old male keeper.
Mate it's the same here in Australia. The mainstream channels don't really show much interest in women's sport, but SBS and ABC (our two public broadcasters) go out of their way to report on women's soccer, cricket, hell, even rugby (YouTube for lols). They've even hired female sports reporters for their news programs.
The thing is, it's so obvious that the people (usually feminist journalists) who try to promote it are only doing so for ideological reasons, and don't actually regularly watch them at all themselves! They're only interested in sport to the extent they can criticise it and spoil it for the true fans.
Just had this discussion with a female complaining about how they don't have opportunities to earn equal money in pro sports... We debated, I realized that she couldn't hear facts over the noise of her "equality" BS so I queued up my favorite women's motocross video. https://youtu.be/GRB2QTP8DpU . One of many examples.
one simple answer is match attendance by fans. there really aren't any
When I watch sports, there is nothing more boring than watching a bunch of lesbians play a slower, less daring, disorganized version of a sport I enjoy.
We should vote with our wallets and support the Lingerie Football League. Now that is some shit I can get behind.
[permanently deleted]
Women's tennis is the only female sport I enjoy watching as much as the men's.
I'm sick of the BBC publishing shit on women's football... No one fucking cares.
Why not post about the U14 level as well? Same skill level.
[permanently deleted]
Just an FYI, you have been shadow banned by the Reddit Admins. You are like Bruce Willis in The 6th Sense, you are dead and everybody knows it but you. I suggest creating a new account.
Hey, you've been shadowbanned. Might want to message the admins about it.
Lol last year during the world cup that idiot chick scored on her own team, come on guys really?
Here's an excellent discussion of the World Cup pay gap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfDynQFUHys
Key points:
So the "pay gap" is smaller than the revenue difference - FIFA is actually sweetening the pot.
The video goes on to point out that women's leagues are special treatment to begin with. Women can't compete with men, so just like the paralympics (and the special olympics), provisions are made where they can participate.
To go on and on about inequity is just utter rubbish. You want equality, try out for the mens teams. Otherwise stfu, and have your leagues that almost nobody watches because the level of performance is less that what a high school boy can achieve.
Yeah yeah but, really, Women can multitask and shit, (or as I like to call it, Scatterbrain)
Women's football players get paid a higher percentage of total revenue than their male counterparts.
Sorry bro, but women's soccer at the world cup level is much more exciting than men's. Would the men destroy the women's teams? Of course. But the women are out there busting their asses while I watch the men drop to the ground like they got hit with sniper fire any time someone touches them. Yes people pay good money to watch soccer but don't kid yourself, this isn't exactly the NFL. The average pro soccer player is just as feminine as his female counterpart. And how many times do you read about these soccer players sleeping with trannies, its unheard of in other sports. The fans though take spectating to a masculinity status of cavemen. Fighting and killing each other over a game.
For the record I'd also rather watch women's beach volleyball, figure skating, and gymnastics.
Two things.
1, why is this sports bullshit on a seduction subreddit? Yes, elite women cannot run as fast, nor are as strong, as elite men. Is this fucking news to anybody?
What, do you expect women to not play sports? Or to play with men? (you just mentioned they'd be outmatched)
If you played in the NFL, you'd similarly get killed, because you are not the size of a roided out gorilla. I mean you would literally be snapped like a twig and literally killed.
2, Soccer, or "pussy football" as we Americans call it, sucks dick, and I would not pay a fiver to watch the men's World Cup finals in the fuckin' stadium. I watched on TV for free last year and fell asleep before the half.
Jesus y'all bitter haters need to get laid, asap.
Of course you are downvoted. As much as everyone talks about hamstering they sure do it themselves sometimes. What a circle jerk about women's sports. OP probably got rejected in high school and rode the bench and now he's butt hurt. Granted I don't speak to many hardcore feminists but I have never once heard a woman claim that women can outperform men in sports. Shit like this makes me wonder how many guys on here have ever even participated in sports. Anyone who has interacted with female athletes knows that they deserve respect. They might not be as fast or agile but that doesn't mean they work any less than men during practice.
Yet you guys play "American" football with 150 lb armor while a similar sport called "Rugby" is played where the only protection you have is a scrumcap. Much more honor in that game too than American football where its all about me dammit!
Rugby players aren't hitting each other nearly as hard as the NFL. They are 2 different sports though, and both are tough in their own way. Maybe if the whole world went crazy for Rugby we could have a discussion about the merits of American football. Unfortunately everyone watches a bunch of feminine men run around a field.
The game is far more dangerous with the 'armor' as you call it. Look up spearing. And second point, no. You're thinking of the NBA post Jordan era.
[permanently deleted]
When the women's soccer team won the world cup, my sisters friend posted on her Facebook,"They should be making more than the men, the men haven't even won a world cup!"
Needless to say, I face-palmed. I wanted to reply with "Well to be fair, the women haven't won a men's world cup either."
You see this happens in combat sports too. Some women's wrestling Olympic medalists win only a few matches in the college leagues against the men, and lose the rest... yet they're top in the world among the women. Food for thought. Cough --Women's MMA-- Cough
Women's sports are the same concept as the special olympics. Seriously, think about it...
The most hilarious part of
Is there's this crazy implication that the money just comes out of the sky from some arbiter of skill, when the truth is that they're making almost exactly what they ought to because it's what people are willing to pay to see them and support them.
If you think they should be making more than the men, then start paying $60-75 for a ticket to a Nat'l Women's Soccer League game or something. C'mon, pony up! They're worth it, right?!?1
Exactly. Which is why the UFC is laughing all the way to the bank with Ronda Rousey because people are willing to pay. She's easily marketable, people are ordering PPVs in droves just to watch her destroy the competition which is about as deep as a children's wading pool. Most of the competition in women's MMA probably all started in a cardio-kickboxing class when MMA was becoming popular, and there's not an Evan Tanner among them.
It'd be the equivalent to watching a Varsity D-1 Soccer Squad against a bunch of highschool varisty squads, and people paying top dollar for it. Can't knock the UFC though, they saw an opening and they struck gold. However the old MMA fans are more interested in the sport aspect of it rather than the entertainment aspect- but if they're pulling more money from the people who only want the entertainment, that's their decision and I respect it.
The high school I went to had a female swimmer who was a 4 time state champ and held individual state records in multiple events. She went on to go to an out of state school on a full ride athletic scholarship for swimming.
She wouldn't have been good enough to make men's varsity at our school. JV would have been a struggle.
When I was a High School swimmer, my non-tapered (no rest) race times were over a second faster than the Women's World Record holder in the same event. (Dara Tores)
I made it to State, but didn't make it out of pre-lims.
Aw you just reminded me of my favorite thing ever. We did a men vs women scrimmage at my high school, except after we started doing too well I proposed the men play on one foot. So we tied one of each of our feet behind our backs and hopped around with the ball. Great teamwork training. To be fair our women's team was really bad, but, we still won that game.
lol, OMG. And that's varsity sports. Jesus tits. Women are so WEAK!
This is my favorite:
Karsten Braasch is a German former professional tennis player. His highest ATP singles ranking was World No. 38, which he reached in June 1994. His career-high in doubles was World No. 36, achieved in November 1997. He was well-noted for his service motion and his habit of smoking during changeovers. Braasch competed in a "Battle of the Sexes" contest against Venus Williams and Serena Williams at the 1998 Australian Open when he was ranked 203. A decade and a half older than the sisters, Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centred around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager." He nonetheless defeated both sisters, playing a single set against each, beating Serena 6–1 and Venus 6–2.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19980127&id=kqJjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mggGAAAAIBAJ&pg=3506,5011601
He is my hero, just for the smoking part, that's hilarious
its funny how these feminist morons set themselves up to fail
nobody with a brain cared about mayweather fighting ronda rousey. nobody would even think it's a contest. but feminist morons will keep talking about it, and when matches like that or the tennis or chess or hockey happen and the guy wins obviously, they're mad
"Feminism still has a long way to go before everyone is equal!!!"
Anybody with a brain would be actively opposed to such a matchup. It wouldn't be even remotely fair, and quite possibly dangerous for the woman depending on how the fight plays out. I don't want to see rousey's career ended because of a stupid battle of the sexes fight.
I do. I want all feminists cheer and foam ay their mouth how she will be victorious. The watch her eat shit in the first round.
I'd agree with you if Rousey was just as delusional as they are, but she isn't. She's not an idiot, she knows she couldn't beat any guy of equivalent weight, and even refuses to fight a MtF transgender fighter of the same weight.
Yes I'd like to see the rabid feminists eat their words, but I don't want it to be at her expense; she hasn't done anything to deserve that.
Some morons on Youtube and Facebook argue that if the fight happens she will beat Floyd on the mat. Haha, that if she ever touches him. One 'check hook' and she is out.
Sorry to disappoint, but against someone who doesn't know how to ground fight even a much smaller person can win. Check out the fight between Pedro Sauer (brazillian Jiu Jitsu) and a bodybuilder :https://youtu.be/YCKOtBjLZaA
Mayweather has no takedown defence game and is essentially clueless on the ground, if Rousey can take him down (which she can very easily from a clinch due to her judo background I can see her submitting him. All she needs to do is get in close, hug and throw/trip. Of course, it is possible that Mayweather knocks her out on the feet, but historically boxers have not been very successful in MMA right off the bat.
I didn't make my comment from thin air man. There are at least three fight of boxers vs mma fighters with wrestling anf BJJ background. Most of the mma fighters get KO'd before attempting a take down. but hey, anything can happen.
Yeah for sure, I'm just saying if she can clinch she has a decent chance.
But she aint a do-nothing-bitch tho
Not to mention Ronda and Floyd compete in different sports. Its like saying a Seahawks football player would be better or worse than a New Zealand All Blacks player. They wouldn't equate to shit.
I honestly think that if it were an MMA allowed competition, Rousey would take Mayweather; she's more versatile and agile (except maybe for footwork). If it was a boxing match though, Rousey would honestly probably die.
You honestly think a world class male athlete would lose to a world class female athlete!?!!?? Get me what this guy is smoking.
I do, simply because he's a boxer, not an MMA fighter. So he isn't trained to defend against kicks and grappling.
Ronda would totally kick his ass
At what? MMA, sure, as far as I know mayweather isn't trained in it. Boxing? He might easily, easily outright kill her.
Only if he was completely unprepared to defend against grappling.
I like the smack talk afterwards.
Venus Williams:
A few others have commented with the tennis example but not known what the guy's name so I added what you said to the post, thanks for the contribution
To add to this, John Macenroe has come out saying he'd beat them too, and I believe him, being that he was one of the best in the world at one point in his career.
He even had a couple of beers before the match. (German)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDvMBPZ5Bik&list=RDGRB2QTP8DpU&index=2
The guy was a decent professional who was coasting nonchalantly through the tennis world in his low 30s, while the girls were teenagers and brand new to professional tennis. The comparison is ridiculous and useless.
Ridiculous, yes. Why would any woman challenge a man in a physical activity? Useless, no. It illustrates female hubris quite nicely.
It really isn't surprising that men are better than women at sports because of the obvious natural physical strength. What I find surprising is that men are also consistently better than women in chess.
Chess is part of the patriarchy I learned in both my gender studies masters degree programs.
/S
Obviously. Look how the pieces are shaped.
The bishop is clearly the shape of a man's penis.
And that poor queen! So oppressed, she can move any distance in any direction, while the king is free to move one space at a time.
In feminist chess, the queen can also move like a knight as well, because it's only fair and realistic that a woman can do anything a man can do.
I thought it was because they go on tangents.
Once that all was different.
Historian Marilyn Yalom proposes that the prominence of medieval queens such as Eleanor of Aquitaine and Blanche of Castile and Isabella I of Castile, the cult of the Virgin Mary,[4] and the power ascribed to women in the troubadour tradition of courtly love, might have been partly responsible for influencing the piece towards its identity as a queen and later its modern great power on the board, as might the medieval popularity of chess as a game particularly suitable for women to play on equal terms with men.[8] She points to medieval poetry depicting the Virgin as the chess-queen of God or Fierce Dieu.[9] Significantly, the earliest surviving treatise to describe the modern movement of the queen (as well as the bishop and pawn), Repetición de amores e arte de axedres con CL iuegos de partido (Discourses on Love and the Art of Chess with 150 Problems) by Luis Ramírez de Lucena, was published during the reign of Isabella I of Castile.[10] Well before the queen's powers expanded, it was already being romantically described as essential to the king's survival, so that when the queen was lost, there was nothing more of value on the board.[11]
FYI : the Persians & Arabs didn't call it a "Queen"
Thy called it the "Viceroy" (wazeer) - the King's right hand man who does everything for him and has wide power to move about as needed.
Makes sense, no? Otherwise what the heck would a queen do on the battlefield? She'd move as slow or slower than the king anyway.
Or, looking at it another way, the queen is so oppressed that she does all the work, when really the king is what ultimately matters.
Like an alpha lion and his harem
Never trust a man who goes straight for the bishop
If chess were about fefes and not about logic and strategy, women would be pretty damn good at it.
The ruthlessness and efficiency of the female hamster is awe inspiring. Women run their own virtual reality, superimpose the virtual reality over actual reality. Then do little more than emote both inwardly and outwardly to shape reality in a way that maximises both return on investment and resource extraction.
Its not really surprising when you think about it from an evolutionary perspective, men are hunters, women mind to the tribe. Hunters obviously need a physical strength and speed advantage, but they also need more cunning, better reflexes, better capacity to endure mental torment, better endurance both mental and physical etc etc.
Men have been training at this tasks for all our time existing as humans and tens of millions of years prior to that in any species with clearly defined gender roles.
The bigger question is, why do they think men wouldn't be better at this?
You should post more around here... your low reward living post a while ago was excellent
Funny you should say that about Chess, Milo Yiannopoulos (gay anti-feminist journalist) actually explains why men beat women in chess (in reference to some grandmaster implying that men are naturally better).
IQ is an astoundingly accurate indicator for chess ability, as one might imagine for what is essentially a puzzle game, and whilst men mightn't have higher IQ's on average than women they do have a greater variation. So there are more very high IQ men just like there are more very low IQ men compared to women who are more clumped in the middle of the two extremes. Because of this, there are more high IQ men than women and in Chess... We see this reflected. If it were chess between average men and women with very similar IQ's, we probably wouldn't see much of a difference in ability.
I think it's something beyond IQ too though. It's what men are interested in. It's about becoming so enthralled with one thing that you don't care about anything else. Very few women are going to put their entire lives into chess, but hundreds (probably thousands) of men have. Also Milo Yiannopoulos is based AF. Honestly single handedly changed my opinion about homosexuals.
Just learned that Milo is gay, didn't even cross my mind to be honest. He is so fucking eloquent and straight up destroys feminists every time he goes on screen.
being gay gives him special powers among feminists. They can't simply dismiss him because homosexuals have been more oppressed than women, historically. So he can say things and not be dismissed as just a "white hetero cis scum". He, of course, acknowledges this and points out its ludicrousy.
See also - David Starkey:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj9dA6E3fJw
It's fantastic. These fuckwit feminists don't respect science, just "privilege" and so they can't say shit against him whilst he's quoting the science. They long to just make an ad-hominem attack (because that's all an idiot can do when they lack evidence or logic) but they won't do it because he's "oppressed"
Just hung out with this twink that lives on my street for the first time, it was amazing listening to how openly he talked about women with effectively strangers. "They are just chasing after that ring" Is one thing I remember.
This guy was complete GayRP, even did coke with lady gaga apparently.
He is of course totally dismissed by misogynistic assholes such as yourself.
And he's pretty grossed out by the flamboyantly proud gay community. He's definitely an interesting voice.
I don't know where I stand on this, but I certainly don't run to the streets to express I'm a proud heterosexual. I just am what I am. That said I support further equality, and action leads to correction.
This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy.
If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension GreaseMonkey to Firefox and add this open source script.
Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.
I think I read earlier that having obsessions like this is a trait of testosterone. Anyone know any link between the two?
Excess testosterone in the womb is an indicator of autism, and autists tend to find obsessions and be very skilled and knowledgeable in that field.
It always comes back to autism on this site. Next you're gonna tell me that sociopaths are better at chess too right?
What are you talking about man?
So I think part of it may be due to the fact that testosterone causes the male brain to be more compartmentalized (the average distance between connected neurons is smaller than that for the female brain). The female brain is less modular and more inter-connected. The extreme end of the "male" spectrum leads to the autistic brain, which has an even shorter average distance between connected neurons, and autistic individuals are known for their obsessions so there is likely a connection between these phenomena.
Yes, both girls and boys with higher androgen levels show a greater interest in "male" toys (read: spatial and motion oriented, rather than personal and social oriented).
Then explain women who are obsessed with shoes, bags, or selfies?
Are they really obsessed with it?
Do they subscribe to shoe magazines? Do they study shoes across the globe? Do they know the names of multiple designers (not brand names)? Do they know the history of high heels?
Their interest is just in consumption and attention (selfies).
These all relate to the aesthetics of a woman. It's harder to find a woman who isn't obsessed with the way she looks.
Not really, I see bitches like that every single day.
Milo is good, but reading "the way of men" by Jack Donovan was what changed my opinion about homosexuals. He really understands what it means to be a man.
Yeah same, except I had no idea he was gay until like a year later, funny that it might be the gays who reawaken masculinity
Same here. That book is bad ass AND I'm working on that gang idea...
What does Jack Donovan say?
Agree. IQ does matter of course. But also patience. You need to sit through a game and tournament which can last for hours and days. Later on someone mentions poker (I assume texas holdem) and that women should be better but men are. I think it's for the same reason. Patiences. You need to keep still, sitting at a table for hours. You need to control your emotions. If you blow up, thats almost always the end of the game/tournament. Women find chess and poker plain and simple boring. And I actually understand why the feel that way. But especially in poker it is a major part of them game. Poker face.
Yup, I'd buy that guy a steak dinner.
Would it be a tube steak, by any chance?
Men have had higher IQs on average for a pretty long time. It was only a couple of years ago that female IQ reached equality, and I'm not sure how much of that has to do with biasing the tests.
Non verbal IQ would be significantly greater for men, and coupled with the higher standard deviation for men, would produce far more male geniuses in any non verbal field, including chess.
And what about Esports, where women are just as irrelevant, on every game? (Dota, LoL, etc).
Well, most women wouldn't want to live in a house that consists of their teammates who sit around and practice for 8-12 hours a day. MOBAs at that level highly revolve around reaction skills and twitch reflexes. I have no proof but I'm willing to bet that these skills are mostly seen in men.
IQ scores in MOBAs don't matter because even the most genius player wouldn't be able to outreflex a pro without the same amount of practice.
Sure they would, if they could get picked. But they can't. Only if there is a special girls only team that exists for publicity.
I will talk about Dota since it's the only game I know. It's 80% strategy, item builds, macro management and 20% reflexes, mechanics, etc. And most teams in the west don't live together in houses, except when there is a huge tournament coming, they hate it.
I was surprised to see a woman in the top tournaments of Starcraft 2... And then I read months later that she's trans. Well.
Scarlett is awesome and literally the only "woman" to come anywhere close to a top tier caliber foreign player.
She was actually my favourite player, mad Zerg skills, but I feel lied to by assuming she had defied her genetics so now my favourite is Taeja again
Well league has Remilia Kappa
There's some debate about that: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/sexdifferences.aspx
I suspect that it may have become the conventional opinion, for the simple reason that "men have more retards and more geniuses" is while not really politically correct is at least in the same ballpark as politically correct.
It doesn't actually affect your conclusion either way of course, since men are going to dominate the higher end of the scale regardless of which explanation you accept.
Yeah I actually don't know, was just quoting Milo
It is the commonly accepted view, and I think I have seen studies supporting it before, but I'm not sure if it's actually entirely true. (The difficulty in measuring the IQs on the lower end of the scale could easily cause problems for such arguments)
Source? Everything I've read has said otherwise.
I've got none, just heard Milo talk about it in an interview and it made sense to me. IQ tests measure your ability to solve cognitive puzzles... Chess... Measures your ability to solve cognitive puzzles. Didn't seem a huge stretch that an ability in one would relate to an ability in the other.
You've read studies that suggest IQ is not relevant to chess performance? I'd be interested to read them
Here's an article on the topic: http://www.delanceyplace.com/view-archives.php?p=1975
I've played a lot of chess, and I'm okay at it. But I was a semipro poker player, which is similar. Now, I can say 100% that until you get to the highest echelon of poker, being good at poker is about knowing the secrets of how to play and the volume of games you've played. I'll play a genius noob heads up any day before I play an average IQ guy that's played 5 million hands. Practice makes perfect. Games like chess and poker are way too advanced to essentially wing on principles vs a highly experienced player.
[permanently deleted]
This only applies to Limit Holdem. No limit and pot limit variations are infinitely more complex than chess, which is a game of complete information. Computers consistently can beat grand masters at chess but can't beat the best NL hold'em players. Artificial intelligence is actually using NL holdem as a tool for development of machine learning. It's more difficult because of the risk taking based on incomplete information aspect.
Not true. The best chess players cannot beat computers. The best no limit hold'em players can beat computers. At least since I last heard, which was around 2010.
Poker and Chess are both centred around calculating; a lot of top Chess players are good Poker players.
[permanently deleted]
Most likely. But I'm a big fan of Malcolm gladwell's outliers which really makes you question an assumption like that. A lot of the stuff on IQ kinda makes you realize why it has awful prediction power. If you were to make a model of chess skill, I'd predict that games played would explain probably 90% of variation. But of course that's totally recursive, as well as IQ.
do you mean reddit?
reddit loves to bash the iq test. most people here label themselves intelligent, although i bet they score low on iq tests
the truth is iq tests fuckin work, i mean true there are different forms of intelligence, but iq is a good baseline. why do you think all brilliant scientists/philosophers score high on it?
I'm not bashing IQ tests, I'm saying there's no correlation between IQ and chess ability. It's a relationship that seems intuitive but has no scientific basis. Studies have consistently failed to show IQ as a predictor of chess ability. On average grandmasters don't have a higher IQ than the general population (the biggest study done on this actually showed their IQ was slightly lower, but not enough to be statistically significant). Studies with children have also failed to show a relationship between IQ and chess skill, both in acquisition and overall level of ability.
The only predictor of chess skill that consistently withstands scientific scrutiny is how long someone has been playing.
I think that it would be fairly intuitive that intelligence (or IQ, if you will) in combination with chess experience would be the two largest determining factors. Obviously, a dimwit would have trouble defeating opponents, and even the most intelligent person would have trouble achieving victory if he never had much exposure to the game.
It's intuitive, but as it stands the scientific evidence for IQ is almost non existent.
I really wish Milo would stick with discussing feminism and stay away from American racial and economic issues. He's out of his league.
What is attributed to the higher variance in iq in men?
Interesting that we see this variability in men's wages vs women's wages as well (men making shit-money with huge occupational hazard risk and men making tens of billions of dollars, whereas women tend to just do alright).
I once wrote a response to the popular claim that women are "more average".even people like Milo Y. make this mistake, turd flinging monkey explained the mistake well in his video about male/female IQ. The test is biased towards women and they still do worse.
I will paste the explanation:
The reason why those studies are biased towards women(surprise) is that they made the test on children aged 10-12 or something like this(younger than 13) this peroid of time happens to be when the girls are at their peak mental developement due to the differences in brain matter volume, but this quickly changes, from the age 15 boys reach their peak and girls reach their plato(interesting enough their plato is lower than their peak) so it would only be fair to do the study at High-School aged children where no gender would be put at and disatvantage. Nevertheless boys when put on a disatvantage still score better. Add to that our biased education system and we have what we have. I also for a long time thought that this belief was true but just check his video and the sources that he points out, interestingly there arent other recent studies like this.
Also racing and video gsmes
Motor racing is definitely a big thing. Men excel by a good margin in pretty much any sport, but they seem to do so much better in motor racing specifically.
If anyone comes up with that "Women drive better" crap, I just ask them how many high-level motorsport drivers are female. As you might have guessed, none. If they drive so well, then surely someone would want to hire them right?
It is the same thing as the gender pay gap. It is not true because if women really earned less for doing the same job in the same way for the same amount of time, every office building would be filled with women.
The reason insurance companies give better rates to women (in countries where it is legal), is because they claim lower, not less, thus they are a cheaper liability (let's not count that men drive more, or drive the dangerous times, like a couple going home after a party). Once again men do a better job. Might be wrecking cars, but they are still better at it.
The one exception I've seen to this rule was Michele Mouton. I don't know how highly skilled the men in Group B in that era were, though. There were a lot of changes in the sport in the early days.
Its not only strength or physical advantages only.
Men are stronger, quicker and have more resistance than women.
But there are also mental advantages. Men have quicker coordination and are more precise for quick moves (women are more precise when there is no time limitation). We also have better spatial perception. On top of that we are more competitive, more independent thinkers and more prone to enjoy puzzle solving type problems.
This last three, together with the fact that there are note highly intelligent men than women, is probably a big part of why men are better at chess.
When it comes to sports and competition women have no chance against men.
I don't believe that. The best snipers, archers, whatever requires slow precision, are men.
And there are men artists carving statues in the frame of a pencil's graphite core, as you may happen to see seldomly posted in the frontpage (happened recently).
The only advantage they might have, in general, is to have really fucking petite hands, and this help. As it helps not having to slam, force, and abuse their hands in any way that the average male is required to do.
Also having very short arms helps, too, since you have to control less angular movement and the nerves have to cover less distance.
Males are still better.
While men do tend to dominate those fields it's hard to tell how much of that is some sort of male superiority with slow precision and how much is simply greater male interest/competitiveness.
I think he meant to say "comparatively better"
Men are probably better than women at both tasks.
But if you compare high coordination, quick thinking, reflexive activities (basketball, soccer, ping pong) to low reflex, concentration activities (chess, golf, curling), men are far better at the former, and women have the comparative advantage at the latter.
This in line with what I've observed in academia. Women, no matter how high their grades, almost always flounder on competition type tests which give you no study time. Men with shitty grades often best them by large margins. The tests require quick thinking and creativity.
Men with dark eyes and dark hair (which are correlated with more masculine features) are also better at the former type of activity than men with blue eyes and blonde hair.
I have blue eyes and dark hair. Am I just fucked?
You are if you have a very feminine face. What I stated is just a correlation.
Snipers and archers are not the best example of slow precision as they still need quick decision making. And even with static targets you have the issue of spatial awareness and general coordination where men are better.
But studies done with relaxed task like carving pottery, painting and shit like that showed that on average women are more precise. Its still possible that competitiveness pushes men on the extreme of the curve to excel. But the studies I read showed women were more precise on average in this particular.
I dunno man, the amount of extraordinary male painters and other artists there are and were... man...
I doubt precision at the level we are talking here is what makes or breaks an artistic painter.
Actually some of the top sharpshooters are female.
it is when you've bitten off the idea that "we're all the same except for plumbing."
I don't think even the most hardcore feminists deny that men are physically stronger than women. I beat my sister who is 7 years older than me in an arm wrestle when I was 12 years old.
Then you haven't heard enough or spoken with enough females. Many feminists do claim women can be stronger than men, but they'll often do it in indirect ways, like claiming better reflexes, fastness, resistance, "multitasking abilities".
The old, stupid theory about "men being more powerful, but female more resistant" is often thrown around even by males.
And while the average female may be self-conscious of her limits enough to admit, against their will, that males are phisically superior, talk with some athletic woman that practices a sport and is good in it to be maybe better than the average male in it, and you'll realize this fact makes her think she can be better than any male in it.
Beat her, and she'll always be painfully surprised. Women are completely delusional and detached from reality, and the costant bombing from medias about scrawny 120 lbs girls throwing 200+ lbs muscle men to walls has already made his way in the head of many boys, too.
Most women who seriously pursue any sport are well aware of the huge differences in strength/athleticism between men and women. Sure some of them might talk smack for the media but they are well aware of the facts from personal experience. It's usually the lard beasts who have never picked up a barbell who are most delusional.
Well that's what I thought, but a girl I know who was heavily into training MMA actually thought Rousey could beat up an equivalent man of her weight.
Delusion is more widespread than just the Hambeasts
Never heard this before. What is being more resistant supposed to mean though? Better at resisting force or something?
I think it might be referring to resilient? There does seem to be a bit of an attitude that women are less likely to get injured or sick then men. Which I'm pretty sure is bull based on my own personal experience, but I haven't seen any studies on it.
I have seen studies on pain-tolerance though, and despite the common "knowledge" that women have higher pain-tolerance, as evidenced by childbirth (a truly absurd claim; it would need to be evidenced by something both men and women can experience to count), men actually have higher pain-tolerance:
http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v13/n12/full/nrn3360.html
Yes I always thought that was bullshit as well. I always hear people saying that women can take more pain and that men would pass out if they had to give birth.
However with today's technologies there is no way to accurately measure pain, and since no man has ever given birth how can they claim that men would pass out while doing so?
When I look at personal experiences it becomes quite obvious that men have higher pain tolerance. Also when comparing female MMA with male MMA the males seem to not get knocked out as easily.
There once was an episode of a dutch show called 'Proefkonijnen', which can be translated as guinea pigs, where the two hosts (two 20 something year old males) went to some institute where they could experience what it was like to give birth as a man. They get there, and they just get plastered with electrodes and shocked for two hours. How is getting tasered for two hours even remotely similar to giving birth? Anyways one of them was a little bitch so he quit pretty quickly, the other wen through with it to the end.
From what I'd heard, women only make it through childbirth because prior to the actual birth their body ramps up production of painkillers so their system is literally doused with them by the time the baby's head is coming through. And that in that very specific case, women have a higher pain tolerance than men (being totally doused with natural painkillers) but then, after birth, those levels drop to normal and women once again lack the pain tolerance men have all the time.
Then again that's all on memory and I don't remember where exactly I read it, so take it with a grain of salt.
Ha yeah. I liked Brianne of Tarth in GoT season 4 because it was established she was freakishly large and didn't fit in as a normal woman or with the men. It was believable.
Then in season 5 they added the hot dornish girls and had them beating up men twice their size. Fucking obligatory PC bullshit...
It was totally implausible that a 5'4" 17 year old girl could beat a 30 something year old male war veteran in hand to hand combat.
Last I checked, feminists were peddling the idea that men are stronger because adolescent and adult males are far more heavily encouraged to develop his physique and muscles than are female counterparts.
They don't realize that an average-sized guy who works at a desk and has never stepped foot in a gym can easily ragdoll a comparably sized female athlete, with the possible exception of wrestlers and fighters (only because there is considerable skill involved there).
Its lookahead.
Women do not think strategically. Whether it's ten years or ten minutes. It's why they can't figure out that feminism ultimately impedes them from getting what they want.
[permanently deleted]
[permanently deleted]
I see this all the time when playing hockey when women are involved. They may be able to skate and stick well, but unless it is one-on-one they are never where they should be. You put more than two women on the ice at the same time and it's comic to watch the chaos. This is why the boys HS teams beat the the olympic girls team.
Focus and 3-dimensional modeling are masculine traits.
Why on Earth would you find that surprising? Chess is a very logical game of tactics and strategy.
Chess requires a lot of stamina both physical and mental. To play it well, you need a strong frame of mind, a strong enough body to support that, and a very sure footed non-panicky approach. If you're the kind of person who runs away at the first sign of danger then you're not gonna succeed. Now, how many women fit that description?
In yerevan armenia there is a chess school, which both boys and girls attend. similarly, today was the first day of class here in yerevan, and there were a fair amount of girls in my calc 3 and numerical analysis classes. I'd say almost 50/50. back in america the ratio was a lot, lot, lower.
Imo I think a lot of talent/interest comes from what you were exposed to as a young child/toddler. in western societies girls tend to be exposed to consumerism/beauty, boys construction, military, sports, and "explosive" science. I believe this leads boys to be more interested in thought-provoking activities in the future. girls who are raised in an intelligent household however (doctors daughters, engineers daughters, etc.) seem to go into STEM fields if they are exposed to the things their parents (if both parents are in some highly technical field I think the chance is much greater) do, and consequently, what the parents choose to show their children (education tv, books, etc.)
not so. There are difference is brain development even before birth due to different hormone levels. Even with very young babies, girls pay attention to people and expressions, boy babies tend to ignore people and are attracted to things. This continues as they get older, so it is no accident that the main STEM fields that attract women are medicine and psychology - because both involve interacting with people. Similarly, the one field in the humanities that is dominated by men is philosophy, because that is about abstract ideas and not about people.
And so, here really is something that women are better at: subtle communication and picking up more information from the people around them. Women can make superb spies, but in many social situations, it pays to have a woman on your side, she can tip you off about a lot of stuff that goes over a man's head. Unfortunately, in today's society, women are trained not to be on men's side, to be their competitors and adversaries.
Another thing they ought to be good at is raising children, but it seems this is a skill to be learned, and feminism discourages women from doing so. The result is a plague of single mothers who fuck up lots of children's lives - particularly boys.
You gotta watch Brainwash in the sidebar. It makes a pretty strong case against your claim.
Vastly more men and boys are playing chess than women and girls, so the pool of talent is much larger. I also supect world class chess players have an almost autistic concentration and dedication to the game. This ability is much more prevalent among men than girls.
To the OP. No surprise, men are stronger than women. That doesn't mean women are inferior, they're just evolved for a different purpose. Also another physical difference as important as strength and staminia and speed is rate of injury. Women are just getting injured a lot more, even doing fairly simple things as walking.
Indeed, but then why is that? You seem to be implying that if the same number of women played then there would be an equal number of grandmasters, but that isn't so. People are drawn to what they can be good at, and women are not drawn to chess, even though the national chess federations do all they can to encourage women/girls to participate. Same with FIDE, they make a special 'Woman Grand Master' title which is lower than an actual grand master to try to encourage them. But even proportionally, there are fewer. It is hardly surprising that a game of stylised warfare, with a strong geometric element, is something that plays to men's strengths. The same difference applies to Shogi and Go, incidentally.
It means they have inferior strength (and speed, and stamina), and so are inferior at sports. This is why sports are divided on gender lines, to encourage women. I heard a lot of 'women are not as strong, but they are better at stamina sports', except they aren't check out long-distance running times. In fact, I went through a whole load of sports looking up world records, and men beat women on every one, except discus. Then I found that the men's discus was twice as heavy as the woman's. Which I'm fine with, I'm all for encouraging women into sport and rewarding them for their efforts, but all the media trying to tout that women are really just as proficient as men pisses me off.
Even less physical things, this one always makes me laugh
Moto X Enduro men's final https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5X9lENC4jQ&list=LL4pZDAwPZX_pOBXl5PoWQDA&index=16
Moto X Enduro women's final https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lCKeDl0l9c&list=LL4pZDAwPZX_pOBXl5PoWQDA&index=15
Women are probably doing relatively better at stamnia sport. The difference being smaller compared to sports relying more upper body strength. Women's Marathon record is 2:15, men's is 2:03. 2:15 was the men's record as little while ago as 1963, and 2:15 is certainly a whole lot better than I, or 95% of men, would ever get anywhere near to beating.
But in general I don't think much can taken from top-sports people and applied on the general population, they're too special. And another thing is that many of previous women's sport records were based on them having taken testerone, making them more male. And it always seems to me than the more succesful a female athlete is, the more male looking she is (the Williams sisters).
There's just no argument to be made against the fact that women are weaker, slower, smaller, have less stamnia, and more prone to injury, probably are also less able in visual and spatial faculties. Facts are facts. And trans-women (so-called) competing in women's legues are just cheating. But I still encourge girls to do sport since a healthy lifestyle is better for men as for women. So don't really see any reason to make fun of it.
btw. there has also been suggestions that women should play with a smaller ball in soccer
So do I, both sexes should be encouraged to play sports, both physical and mental.
There is very good reason to make fun of it. Because of the reality distortion that so saturates our media, fueled by feminism. If it wasn't for that, I doubt that anyone would be making fun of women in sport, they are after all the best of women. It would be like making fun of marathon runners for being poor gymnasts. But the media constantly tries to persuade people that women are as good or better than men in all things, even physical things (hence so much of the crap in Hollywood films). It is an attempt to diminish men and attack masculinity. So, the pendulum swings.
Especially considering kings can only move one square at a time but queens can move all over the damn place
I think you will find that high school boys are better than professional women at sports.
you find that surprising? seriously?
To me it's surprising at an Olympic level the girls team couldn't hold up with high school level boys. Anything Olympic level to me describes the best of the best. But 5 matches.. Holy balls!
And esports too. The rng is gender biased to favor males
Like as part of the sidebar, women are more general and consistantly average, where men are wide ranging. We have a LOT more smart men and Stupid men, and a lot less average men (you know what I mean).
That is why it doesnt surprise me that there is one really good female chess player in a field of 100 men. Im sure there is that one woman out there with the talent, but as a gender? They simply cant do it.
That's an understatement.
Women have their own Grand Master league because they are so woefully inept compared to the men they simply cannot compete on the same level, even poorly.
Judit Polgár is considered the best female chess player of all time and a statistical outlier. She held world #1 for the past 25 years (up until a few months ago, she retired last year) and to date is the only woman to ever win a game off a reigning world rank 1 Grandmaster, even if it was 2 wins 8 losses or the like.
She peaked at 2700 ELO back in the early 80's with her average being around 2400 ELO IIRC.
Male Grandmasters are usually 2800+ and peak close to 3000. Turns out this difference is pretty standard. Studies going back to 1975 have shown that even the best female Grandmasters are ~250 ELO lower than their male counterparts with that difference becoming greater as the ELO rating lowers.
If it wasn't for Judit Polgár we wouldn't even have record of a woman good enough to compare to male Grandmasters. Without her career as a reference all we'd know is that a female GM has never, ever defeated a male GM and that Female GM's are so inferior to male GM's that comparing them would be like comparing Apples to Oranges.
How would you compare an F1 car to a bicycle? Saying one faster than the other doesn't quite tell the whole story.
Men are also better at cooking and cleaning. I was preparing for an interview, and my wife asked why I needed to dry clean my suit.
I don't find it surprising at all.
We're, on average, 5-10 IQ points smarter.
You're right, but for some reasons many males can't accept that, and spread the nonsense of "we're just more shifted at the extreme".
Which is a self-evident lie, most women really can't get the most simple things, while almost all men, for how socially prevented and awkward they might be, can understand how things works.
The main reason for that bullshit being spewed around even there on trp is binary reasoning. Whenever X is good at a, Y must be good at b, sort of to compensate, to balance it out.
but it doesn't work like that.
Another reason to the myth is that men see how women are usually better at presenting themself in society, have good manners, and talks a lot. They mistakes that shit for smartness. Then dogs or cats must be smarter than humans, they're always so focused and quick to understand what's going on!
Men are phisically stronger, and also generally smarter.
Sure there are a lot of boys acting dumb. But there are always more females acting smart while being the opposite.
Not true at all, but there are far more men at the top end of IQ (and the low end).
When the first IQ tests were created, men had higher scores than women, so they were tweaked until both sexes averaged at the same score, and that average score would be 100. So men and women have the same average IQ, but that's by design.
I have heard the same thing, and that in normalizing the scores for IQ tests even now, any question that shows a marked gender difference in score is thrown out. However, while I have heard this, I don't have a definitive source, do you?
Wikipedia does.
Wow, hidden in plain sight. I just assumed that feminists and their allies would have erased any discussion of it there. Thanks.
Damn. As someone who has done some research into this field...oops!
I've actually seen studies (didnt save the links) where they found that men had, on average, something like 3.8 IQ points more than women
It's very possible that the current exact numbers are a bit different than when the tests were created. But when they were, they were specifically designed for parity between the genders.
That does seem odd, but the stereotype is that men are problem solvers and physical movers, whereas women are nurturers and social masterminds. Chess is mostly a problem solving thing and is about direct confrontation. I'd guess women are probably better at a game like Poker, and holy shit never play Monopoly with your LTR either.
But they aren't. You're guessing that because of the binary reasoning of "x is better at a, so y MUST be better at b, otherwise x would be better in everything."
Yes, males are better at anything. The only thing males cannot do, is give birth. Many women can't do that, either.
It's not politically correct, it's a bitter thing to accept, but it so is.
That's simply not true.
Women are better at verbal communication than men. And they are better at Machiavellian social games. Those are both very valuable skills.
I dont think women are better at being machiavelian. If they were, they would dominate politics. As it is, when they have any opponent at all they dont live up to the hype. Women are skilled at being machiavelian when others are trying to cooperate. Its a part of their nature so they dont have to turn it on or off. They play against men who dont realise the game has started. That is their true strength. A hamster that never sleeps.
To be a good politician you do need to be machiavellian, but you assume women want to be politicians. Feminists love to bitch about politics, but by and large it doesn't seem like a job that appeals to most women.
I lift and am very strong, and people say I could be really good at football and they're right. I have the skills and strength to be a good football player, but it would be a fallacy to asume just cause im good at it that I therefor do it.
And for the record, I dont actually think women would make better politicians. An element of military savy, natural leadership, etc. is needed, and those are more asculine traits.
Yeah, mathematics seems to fit men a lot more. My physics AS level class started with 7 girls and in the 2nd year of it 6 of them dropped the subject as they found it too hard. Girls are better at written subjects though.
I also think it's frustrating that SJW's don't admit that a man who was a fit athlete, that later transitions to female, does not have an advantage over natural females in competition. They swear that some hormone pills erases all physical advantages that person ever had.
[permanently deleted]
Good God.....
Well guys, that's it. Wrap this one up. Points have been proven over and over in this thread. From world class teams losing to teenage zit faced boys. To some D2 scrub guy beating former WNBA MVP in 1 on 1. I think.... This one is busted good and proper, lol.
Probably the sexiest team in the world too.
Physical strength doesn't matter that much in football (soccer). I have played against young soccer talents. Yeah, I'm just an average player but you just have 0 chance against them playing within the rules. So all in all, not too surprising either.
My favorite: https://youtu.be/GRB2QTP8DpU
You see some of the women going around a difficult obstacle (cheating) and getting away with it? Perfect analogy for feminism
No, no. She was "showing some wit."
I hope the commentator didn't believe his own B.S.
And this is what they do on tv. God knows what cheating they do when noone is looking
I only got 30 seconds in... That's so cringe-worthy. I knew a girl who competed in the WORLD championship for motorcross too... I think so much less of her now. Fuck me.
That was pitiful. These women are professionals? I could do better, and I'm by no stretch a motorcyclist.
Male on female fights, even with supposedly feminine 'men' end badly
Remember, Ronda Rousey is on record saying she could beat Floyd Mayweather but she won't take on a MTF transgender because "it's not faaaaaaair".
Well, that's a bit different, because Mayweather wouldn't know how to defend against take downs and submissions. Take downs and submissions are specifically design for fighting against a physically stronger opponent, which is exactly the case here.
With that said, with some basic MMA training and preparation, and being that Mayweather is an elite athlete even though I dislike him very much, Rousey wouldn't stand a chance.
IMHO.
I totally agree with the first paragraph but have to disagree with the second. Rousey is a 4th degree black belt and olympic medalist. Grappling takes years to master. I'm a former wrestler and a bjj player for 1 year and when I roll with this female black belt judoka at my gym, I have to go 100% to not get submitted, and she probably weighs 40 lbs less than me. He would at least need 2 years of training to be competitive. But thats neither here nor there, she says she could beat him now. She isn't claiming that she could beat an elite male mma fighter.
[permanently deleted]
I honestly don't think there is much correlation between being a good grappler and a great athlete. BJJ is one of those sports that technique will always trump strength. Probably the main factor that stops someone from becoming good is their ego. You have to get your ass kicked daily and submitted multiple times over and over and over before you even feel like you have an idea of how to defend yourself. Its fun at first but the honeymoon ends pretty quick when guys who look like someone you could destroy in a bar fight regularly works you over. Its all hypothetical but I couldn't see Mayweather picking up BJJ and practicing against a guy like Dean Lister who shows up to practice drunk and still beats everyone. His ego is too big. By the way, everyone should read about Dean, this guy is a class act: http://fightland.vice.com/blog/the-tao-of-dean-lister
Not a fan of either by any stretch. But in an MMA match, unless Floyd can manage to avoid the takedowns and that's a big if. It's a wrap, she'd choke him out too fast. He'd have to tag her a couple times to slow her down and even then I have no doubt she would eat a couple to take him down.
why are you getting downvoted ? And with no comments ? It makes no sense...
The thing is, even from a disadvantageous position, the male may be able to win. It's like letting an ordinary guy mount Brock Lesnar, Brock will knock him out from the ground with a jab despite being in a very disadvantageous position.
Being good at stuff like grappling, BJJ, etc can let a weaker man beat a stronger man. But I don't think many people realize how much stronger a man is compared to a woman. Looking at Olympic Weightlifting results is very telling. The super heavyweight women are lifting the same weight as men who are only 50-60% of their body weight. I'm not sure if positioning is enough to overcome that magnitude of power difference between men and women. If a woman does a perfect takedown on a man, he might be able to get off a glancing blow as he is being taken down, and that blow may cause severe injury.
You couldn't pay me money to touch a tranny.
Nah. If she fought Mayweather, which is never going to happen by the way, everyone would know it is a male/female fight just to see what happens. If she however, lost her status as UFC champion because someone with essentially the bone and muscle structure of a man beat her that would be unfair as fuck.
Transgenders competing in female leagues is bullshit. That southpark episode explained it best, it is all just cosmetic. A transgender is still a man on the inside.
This whole debacle is just media-made drama again. Right now this Fox girl/guy/kid is some random no-name with a completely unimpressive record. Professional martial artist only fight 2/3 times a year and other girls actually have to earn a title shot to fight Rousey. So let's talk about it again when this transgender is actually in a position to earn a title shot, as of now she has no business in a fight with Rousey.
What does Fox have to do in order to earn a title shot? As things stand now, her record is 5-1. If memory serves me correct, not even Brock Lesnar had that impressive of a win:loss ratio when he first won the UFC Heavyweight Title.
Personally, I'd love to see Ronda Rousey put up or shut up. She says she would fight one man but it's unfair for her to fight a transgender now? Fox is in the league and she's a contender, like it or not.
The difference is because Brock was already a settled martial artist he got put up against very good competition straight away. MMA is set up in a way where there are tons of different organisations who hire fighters, let them fight each other and broadcast it for entertainment value. UFC is by far the biggest organisation, with Bellator as a second. There is a whole spectrum of these organisations, some being very elite and some being very, very unknown.
Fox is competing in one of these unknown organisations. Fighters in these kind of organisations can't support themselves financially with their fighting. They usually have full time jobs and do this fights on the side to earn some cash here and there.
Real talents will almost all of the time stay undefeated at this point and then flow up to a more respectable organisation. If they keep performing well against better competition in these more respectable organisations they continue to flow up and get hired by better and better organisations until they eventually end up in the UFC.
Then if they are still winning most of their fights they will climb up the rankings and when they end up around the top 5 people will start to argue someone is eligible for a title shot.
Having 5-1 record as a professional mixed martial artist seems impressive, at first but it's really not if all you are facing are people who almost purely view it as a hobby and you compete in an organisation called Joe's Fancy Barfights or something similar.
Fox is still competing in these bottom-tier organizations and the fact that she has already lost one is not extremely bad but not really great either.
The guys who really start at the bottom have to go through countless winning sprees to end up in big organisations like the UFC and Bellator.
Some examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julio_Cesar_(mixed_martial_artist) This one in particular is a great example. On paper his MMA record looks amazing but he got criticized for only fighting weak opponents, hence it took particularly long for him to reach big organisations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Almeida
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khabib_Nurmagomedov
That's like saying some Arena league team deserves to play the Patriots because they have a winning record
You know, if a male made such a claim, the feminist press would seize on it and never let go...
Bill Burr has a piece about transgender (male to female) 'athletes' who are mediocre 200th in the world before surgery and number one afterwards.
God damn.
Dave Chapelle probably says it best in his bit about a trans-gender. To what degree do I have to participate in your delusion?
Do you have a link to the vid?
Yeah but it's shit quality and goes for like an hour. It's in his 2015 special which I've only found awful Camera phone footage of so far
Ok so transgender is something I'm sensitive about. Someone close to me has a sibling who went through a sex change so I really understood what they were going through.
It's terrible, it's absolutely horrifying to see how they're treated. That post that was so praised here about the gay woman who decided to live as a man for an extended period of time, she had to go to therapy because of how messed up she was trying to live as a man.
It's something like 41% of trans commit suicide because they can't handle living as an opposite gender. I understand there's a difference between identifying as a bullshit gender label because you want attention or some other reason, but someone who is truly living as the opposite gender, you can't beat them to the ground until you've witnessed their life first hand.
But that's what that tranny did to that lady. I don't have a problem with you wanting a sex change. You decide to start fighting women. You deserve all the hate coming your way.
My girlfriends friend is a staunch feminazi and she went on and on about how it's unfair that Rousey wouldn't fight her. She just couldn't understand that there were physical differences.
And yet they still managed to make out that Ronda wouldn't fight an actual man because 'it would give a bad example for people seeing a man beat up a woman on television', while still not refuting the idea that she could take on the men. Yeah, right.
Wasn't Rousey mouthing off recently about how she could kick Floyd Mayweather's ass? I don't care about Mayweather, but I think she's all talk.
[permanently deleted]
Did she say MMA? I can't remember. In any case, Floyd shouldn't fight her. If he loses, people will call him pussy for losing to a girl. If he wins, people will call him a pussy for fighting a girl in the first place.
She said she would beat him in a 'no rules fight' which is very close to MMA, but quite far from boxing. It is funny that feminists are paying so much attention to Rousey and putting her front as a 'strong indypindeint woman', given that Rousey is not a feminist at all. Her statement about not being a 'do nothing bitch' is about as anti-feminist as it can get. Also she is not your typical 'I can beat anyone and everyone, even the males' female athlete. She really has a ton of respect for the elite male MMA guys. She only said she could beat Mayweather as a response to him saying he didn't know who she was in an interview about a year ago. She said she felt disrespected by that.
Oh yeah and don't worry about it. They are never ever going to fight each other.
I hadn't heard of her until last year. Would she consider that disrespectful, too? As it is, I first heard of her because some guy on Deviantart.com drew a picture of her, and I decided to look her up.
That's disgusting, can't hack fighting other guys so you beat up on women. Pathetic in so many ways, just head to the hills with your ridiculously tailored dresses.
[permanently deleted]
She has never said that: http://espn.go.com/mma/story/_/id/12475434/ronda-rousey-explains-why-fight-man
Uhh..he cut off his penis to beat up chicks ?! This is madness !
[permanently deleted]
Nah. I'm not saying she isn't athletic at all, but she is one in a half dozen women who have competed in combat sports her entire life. It really doesn't take much natural ability to outclass people who have never wrestled, never thrown a punch, never been hit, never cut weight, never done anything up until 2-3 years ago if you've been in the game for 20+ years. When she throws these girls around, its because she's in a position of leverage (JUDO!). Its kind of funny to watch how out of position these "professionals" can get before they get tossed. Rousey's success is less an indication of her skills and more an indication of show shitty female "professional fighters" are.
I agree, but that's exactly what puts her in that top percentile.
If 1,000 people write a test and everyone fails except one person, that puts that individual in the top 0.1%. It doesn't matter if the other people writing the test were brilliant or retarded.
However, whether the other people were brilliant or retarded determines how impressive an accomplishment it is to be in that top 0.1%.
I think the disagreement is more nuanced. You said strength and natural ability or I misread it.
AKA nature put her in the 0.1%. I disagree, it was nurture. I think if most girls competed in combat sports from the time they were 4-5 years old, Rousey would look unremarkable against the best of them.
I agree, if even 10% as many girls faught mma as play basketball, Rousey wouldn't be close to the top.
She needs to fight Cyborg. She has been off steroids for four years. Dana is milking that cow 'til the end.
It's not like Rhonda's jawline isn't growing anyway.
A she is jacked for 135 pound fighter. I need some of that shit too.
I get soooo tired of everyone (women) acting like she's able to best up men.. The other day on the radio a female DJ made the comment that she could probably beat up shaquil O'Neal because of her "training"..
Women watch so much TV they start to think it's real
I think that chick does roids bro. She's way to aggressive for even a fighting female. I mean, Ali's daughter wasn't that aggressive and she was a gold medalist in boxing.
Something ain't quite right about that Rousey chick.
I hope Floyd fights her, that would be hilarious. Give floyd 6 months to learn some judo and shit, that stuff is geared for novice and physically weak people to be able to take down someone stronger, can't be that hard to learn. Especially if chicks can do it.
Floyd would kill her. In I think he could kill her. Especially if they use those light gloves that MMA uses. I can't imagine getting hit by Mayweather with 4 oz gloves.... She'd be dead, I think he'd kill her in one blow. He'd definitely cause massive fractures if he got a loaded and delivered a hook or uppercut. She might die if she fought him.
I'd love to see it, so she would shut up already. Big mouth. Obnoxious women are such a turn off.
Rousey comes from a family of Judo practitioners. Her mom is super competitive(she was a top competitor in her youth) and seems to be the type to push her kid too far. Rousey was bred to be an athlete, doing judo since she was like 5. I would not say shes on roids, she was bred to be an aggressive competitor by an aggressive, competitive parent. Ali's dad was very much against female boxing and Leila didn't start training until she was 18 and while I dont have citation for this, probably wasn't much of a father as he went through plenty of wives and 8ish children. Rousey pretty much admitted most of the shit talk on Floyd is to help sell her fights, so nothing of the sort will every happen.
Floyd's hooks are weapons. The dude has been practicing them for 19 years.
[permanently deleted]
I know the guy looks huge compared to her, but he's only listed as 6'1 185.
Individual examples aren't good for proving things ("the plural of anecdote is not data"). Rousey may be the best fighter in the world, pound for pound, and it would not affect RP theory at all. It just means she is an outlier.
OP's main example is much better, and statistically relevant. You have a team of players playing multiple matches. That's "data" - a small sample, true, but usable.
TJ would light her the fuck up.
I dunno. I know she would get wrecked by anyone decent, but I honestly think she could beat some of the 135ers in the UFC.
Remember, her clinch and judo is world class and shes pretty good on the ground and she regularly spars with guys anyways.
I'm not saying she would wreck them, but putting her against some of the lower level 135 guys is the closest thing shes going to find to a real fight. She just dominates all the woman.
She wouldn't last a round against any 135er in the UFC. She might last 2 against a guy fighting on the undercard for Crazy Bob's Xtreme Cagefighting in West Bumfuck, Alabama who stepped in the cage on a drunken bet.
and maybe Bubba beats the fuck out of her. The idea that the "best" at a sport might lose to a regular joe is funny.
[deleted]
They'd still beat the Leafs.
:D
:)
:|
:(
:’(
I'm a Leafs fan.
Yep, and the Canadian women's team is, for all intents and purposes, the best womens ice hockey team in the world. I honestly would have guessed that they would have to play mens teams before they started losing consistently, but not so.
Oh, gosh. I was hopeful that the name was just a joke. "Hey guys, let's call ourselves the Canadian Women's Hockey Team because we're not very good! Derp." But no, it wasn't a joke.
Now I want to watch the US Women's basketball team play against Oak Hill Academy just for the carnage. We should have high school boys play all Women's Olympic teams until our oceans are filled with feminist tears.
Jesus christ, dude. Take no prisoners kinda guy, eh?
I have no idea what Oak Hill Academy is, but I can imagine the women wouldn't stand a chance guarding 17-18 year old kids.
To be fair, I watched a 18 under Canadian AAA Midget practice before hockey last night, and they are fucken ridiculously good. This isn't anything groundbreaking, although feminazi's are probably rattled, but you'd only have to watch them play to know no women's team would ever stand a chance.
Southern Alberta under 18s even. If they played in a national league (there aren't any at that age) they'd have to play against under 16s to have a chance.
Dishonest information. The link you provided shows that they only played 18 games (3-11-4), while the other teams played 35. They are only 3 points behind the 2nd to last team. It's highly likely that they would've managed to make up those 3 points in 17 other games.
That said.... 2nd to last is still a joke.
All hail the Fort Saskatchewan Boston Pizza Rangers!
Didn't something similar happen to the Williams sisters when they played someone ranked outside the top 200 in men's tennis? I know that when Annika Sorenstam, one of the most successful players on the LPGA tour, was allowed to play a unimportant PGA tournament and missed the cut finishing 96th. I don't think any of the top players at the participated, but I could be wrong.
Edit: A word.
Yeah Cpt Fizz just mentioned it, funny as hell: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19980127&id=kqJjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mggGAAAAIBAJ&pg=3506,5011601
If I recall though I think Michelle Wie played in some PGA tour event and beat some guys, still obviously didn't come close to winning.
[permanently deleted]
Yea she is claiming she is better than Dominik Cruz, the current UFC bantamweight champion, who has a current record of 20-1. Gimme a break Ronda
Link? I can't imagine her saying she would beat him. Also he isn't the current UFC bantamweight champion, that was a good time ago. The dude has been injured for a very long time and is thinking about making a comeback later this year.
lol, hahahaha. So true. I got a story that's like this.
Background on me a bit, I played D2 basketball at a very good D2 program. I wasn't a beast tho, and never played a ton. I was on the roster all 4 years and recruited out of HS, but I wasn't a good college player. PG, 6'2" about 190ish. I rode the bench was a role player most of the time. I did see minutes by Jr. and some of my sr. years tho.
Anyway's, I played Diana Taurasi in 1 v. 1 one time, well two times. To 11 by 1's, no 3 point BS, win by two make it take it after 4.
First game I beat her 11-3 and dunked on her 3 times.
So she, like a typical girl, makes excuses. About the ball, I was using a real ball, not the youth hoops ball they use in WNBA.... So 2nd game we use her ball and play 11 again, same rules. But we don't do make it take it.
I win. 11-4. But I don't think I dunked on her that time.
Damn son!
if I were telling that story to a chick I'd leave out the "I wasn't a beast tho" part and just have them use their existing hamstering trajectory to have them project a higher level of necessary skill onto me
lol, ha. The girls I date/bang aren't really "sporty" type of chicks. I find that shit gross. I like feminine women.
it was always bizarre to me that the female "athletes" were often overweight at my college. How the fuck are you d1 carrying an extra 20 pounds? But, an extra few pounds doesnt really matter when nobody is moving that quickly In the entire league.
Playing a sport doesn't make a woman any less feminine.
Cool story but all you really need to do is turn on a wnba game and compare it to a college or inner city high school game to know how well the women perform.
Looking at her stats you are/were roughly 2 inches taller and ~35 pounds heavier. I wonder how she would have gone against a D2 guy of the same height and weight....
I'm not sure what the bragging is about. You had a clear height advantage, let alone by virtue of your chromosomes, likely stronger and faster. And D2 isn't that shitty, c'mon.
So ... like what exactly is the bragging for? You had a clear genetic potential advantage since birth that was not earned by any right.
You might as well tell us you beat a kid who was born with cerebral palsy. No one is really impressed, you just sound like an anus.
I thought it was a pretty interesting story, asshole
Ya thought wrong, ya dateless pussy. Now spread your butthurt cheeks for my fat hairy dong.
Minnesotan here, can confirm (they play our hockey teams too).
Also, US women's soccer loses (and these were their best ever teams) to high school boys teams, the last 100m record for the women in the Olympics was the U15 boys record in like 1985.
Rousey is doing it for publicity, she doesn't even like to get hit in the face by women.
Nobody like getting hit in the face.
I saw a similar story like this when I first arrived on TRP about a year and a half ago. The differences in men and women in sports is astounding. While all my evidence is anecdotal it has solidfied my position on the matter nonetheless.
My high school basketball team would regularly scrimmage the girls. This wasn't done for our benefit at all because playing girls is similar to playing little kids. (A little caveat girls playing against guys does get them a lot better. Just look at the best WNBA players and most of them are good because they played with their older brothers or fathers). Anyways, playing against girls is absolutely terrible. They will bite, claw, scratch and hit you in the nuts just to steal the ball. It's pretty much their true selves in physical display.
My team mate has a younger sister who now plays D1 at the highest level. I asked him about it the other day and he said that he literally taught her everything she knows. Of course, he destroys her everytime they play together but it just goes to show that even being half as good will get you to be at the top on a woman's scale. My teammate isn't really anything flashy or special he's a solid player that works hard and is efficient, not even a start on our team, but he created a superstar at the collegiate level.
Read my comment about Taurasi, it was in 2011 when it occurred. So she wasn't in her "prime" but still made the all WNBA team.
I'm not that good.
Not a peep out of any news media source. NOT A PEEP.
Had this been the other way around, hell hath no fury.
Oh god, I can't even imagine how over-the-top nonsensical it would be.
Haha, upvoted for pure schadenfreude.
I had an argument about this recently.
Some woman was complaining about the wage differences in men and woman soccer players. I tried to explain to her that people want to watch the best soccer at the highest level, thats what brings viewers and sponsors in, and woman just cant provide that.
She couldn't understand just how much of a difference there is between the two.
Take the best womans soccer team in the world and place them against a b-league teams YOUTH TEAM, they are still going to get fucking destroyed.
That darned Patriarchy wins again! [shakes fist]
Is this the Men vs Kzinti war? The Patriarchy never won a war to save its life! /s
If Ringworld was written and published today, it would be triggered right out of the Hugo awards.
A sad state of affairs.
Why do you think that Ronda Rousy is afraid of fighting Fallon Fox? She's just being realistic, she knows she would be trashed.
And yet, Business Insider names Ronda Rousey the 'the most dominant athlete alive'.
Unplug from the mainstream media: that's the first step to swallowing the red pill. It's been over a decade since I owned a TV.
Edit: for grins, you might want to watch the celebrity boxing match between Joey Buttafuoco and "Chyna" Joanie Laurer. Before the match, "Chyna" talks about how she's going to trash Joey on behalf of women everywhere, because he's scum, but then she gets thrown around like a rag doll by an out-of-shape, overweight male in his 40s.
"Business Insider"... A economics magazine ran by nerds and wannabe's that never played high level sports writing about "the most dominant athlete alive".
Yeah. Sure, lol.
Incredibly biased commentators, but what do we expect? Every time the girl decided to throw a punch they praised her, but he was knocking her around all over the place, even though he generally looked like he was holding back. Yet he was much older and well out of shape.
Didn't Fox lose against a woman a few months ago?
Yeah, she lost to Ashlee Evans Smith. I'm no MMA fighting pro, but from what I can see Smith just grappled better and burned Fox out. Fox hits way harder but just cannot keep her footing. Apparently Smith has a lot of wrestling experience.
Edit: that was one of the most incredible feats I've ever seen. Smith was clearly weaker, but she just refused to take hits.
Edit 2: interview where she's talking about the clear advantage Fallon had: https://youtu.be/TRBGnjoWdo8?t=195
The ref did not let Joey do anything to her. That whole match was a setup to artificially prop up women. If that was a ufc match, she'd be KO and bloody.
I was looking for this video to place in the Red Pill Video Compilation Nuke under the 'Gender Equality Narrative' section.
You're delusional if you think Fallon Fox would stand a chance with Rousey. Fox isn't even undefeated in minor leagues, wouldn't stand a chance against the greatest female fighter of all time
Ex GF was studying to be a PE teacher. She supposedly trains her body everyday (paraphrasing her), unlike me a lazy engineer.
She took special pride on her swimming skills, and got very sour when she pushed a swimming race against me and lost.
In her mind she was a top athlete among her peers, and didn't care that I train every single day and I enjoy running marathons, rock climbing and do halterophilia (dont know how to translate, sorry).
lol, only a bimbo female would think that she's in better shape than a male marathon runner. Holy fuck. My God the delusion is real!
Dont get me wrong, I was in a really good shape but I never was a pro. I ran 10K at least 3 times a week, I ran a lot of marathons and just one ultra marathon, average times every time.
Of course my body didnt look like her steroid filled classmates, which I guess was what she called an athletic guy.
Then she has never been a real athlete. I would never think just cause a guy isn't some roided up meathead he's not an athlete. Daguq?! Guys that lift aren't athletic AT ALL. Case in point that crossfit shit. Those dudes run a 400 meter dash in like 1 minute and 10 seconds (SLOW that is SLOW.) and have a shuttle run like 4.7iish.... I run the shuttle in 4.1 and ran the 400 m in HS at sub 52 seconds.... Those guys are not athletes. Just cause you lift and get big and can power clean 300 pounds or do lots of pushups and shit... My God, that's so dumb. So. Fucking. Stupid.
I'm bias, but I always think basketball players are the greatest athletes on Earth. Basketball tests EVERY single physical skill that a great athlete must have. Speed, burst, eye hand coordination, vertical jump, cardio, strength, spatial awareness and an immense skill that must be practiced. Football is similar but not to the degree of basketball.
They're different types of athletes.
The connotation of engineers being wimps nowadays is a strange concept to me. I come from a family of engineers, and from what I see, we're just as much workhorses as any mechanic, just with the capability to actually input design as well.
naw. Get yourself outta that design business.
I googled "halterophilia" and since I guess you speak Spanish (like me) it would translate to Powerlifting.
Power lifting or Olympic weightlifting.
That might actually be a good thing to do with plates, train with them once just to show your physical dominance, especially in an area they falsely assume they're superior
halterophilia is spanish for the sport of weightlifting right? Snatch and Clean and Jerk?
This Kaarsten guy is hardcore amused mastery!
His story is stuff made of legend..
Smoking during interchanges, one serve handicaps, & playing like a ranked 600th player. Any guy would take this challenge seriously or let the girl win.. But this, he just took the piss out of it.
http://www.wearetennis.com/en_UK/#/2013/04/09/karsten-braasch-the-smoker-who-ridiculed-the-williams-sisters/1487
This is what he said after the match.
And here is the punchline..
That goddamn site is unreadable. Who picked that font? And no line spacing? WTF?
It's not the "world view" though, just the "western world view."
Good point, I edited to reflect that, we need to keep a broader perspective
"Women can fight alongside men in war" I don't disagree but how well are they going to do in hand to hand or when they're taken hostage and raped. Or say hiking a dozen miles with a 60 pound plus pack.
A study by the Norwegian military (yep, Scandinavia of all places) showed that even having one woman in a fighting squad drastically decreased their overall effectiveness.
Something to do with them looking out for her all the time at the detriment of the mission, them going to help her when she fell regardless of the circumstances or her relative injury compared to the other guys in the squad.
Military forces around the world are standing firm against the silly hens flapping their wings. If they don't, people will die. I'm absolutely serious. And all so some self-righteous arse-covering politician can grin to herself smugly and say she 'made a difference'.
Yeah, in Australia the politicians are saying that they need to lower the entrance requirement for women because... None of them are passing.
Another commenter did say that in the Israeli Defense Force they do have some mixed companies. Those have casualty rates 7x higher than men-only companies. Now in both UK and US there is pressure (from politicians, and feminists who swallow the Hollywood bullshit) to take women into the front-line. Naturally, the military are under pressure to reduce standards to allow this, just as the police and fire services had to. I only hope they have the sense to have separate companies for women, not mix them.
is there a link available for that stat? (7x casualty rate)
Sorry I didn't get back sooner. It was in comment by an Israeli guy. I think it was on here, or may have been on the Telegraph, but can't find it right now.
That is not quite the best analogy as while most would have trouble with it, it is not often an issue. In my time in service, I didn't recall any women that couldn't hike with full combat gear and ruck. Their stuff is also lighter as things that take up a lot of weight like Armor are smaller because of their smaller frames.
I am not saying there isn't some issues, just that women who try can preform in the modern military.
I can confirm this. My high school team (in Minnesota) scrimmaged the US Women's National team when I was a senior in 2004, and we kicked their asses. Like 9-2 or something like that, and both of their goals came because our goalies were fucking around and gave up super soft goals.
The MMA fighter boast is safe because we'll probably never see a fair match between her and a male MMA fighter (other than Hollywood where she'll have magical athletic abilities)
Oh don't forget that because they were playing high school kids they weren't playing at their best / didn't want to get hurt / it was all for fun / different rules and sized rink / hamster
I'm really surprised no one has given a reason for men surpassing women in most categories, including non-athletic ones such as chess. Men have more genetic variation then women, so the extremes of intelligence and physical prowess are both higher and lower for men than women.
There's a reason that we have women's sports. It's because women can't compete. We already knew this and women already know this.
Was it last year that a woman was in the news for winning a marathon against men? Oh, and they gave her a 17 minute ad 41 second head start.
Oh and she got a 50k bonus for it too.
Feminism has always been about advancing women's interests. It's a sexual strategy but it's also a competition strategy where they do all they can to hamstring male achievement while removing barriers to themselves.
Then they call this, "equality".
Africans from the east make great long distance runners, because that's what they had to do for tens of thousands of years.
Africans from the west are much more heavily muscled due to environmental pressure of a different type (they didn't have to outlast an antelope over a week of running).
There ARE genetic differences. They are built in. With men and women, it ls called sexual dimorphism. It is real and it is documented.
Maybe 10 or so years ago the united states women's national soccer team played some high school team in Connecticut and lost
The u16 boys soccer team regularly faces and beats the women's national team. The team that won the World Cup. The best woman's team gets defeated by an average u16 team.
Too true. I would bet $500 that I could beat the shit out of Rhonda Rousey
Any guy who can keep his hips below hers when she is going for a judo throw would beat her. If you don't know judo she would decimate you, of course.
I see their raking is 8th at the moment so they have aimed a bit lower in terms of opponents. Regardless, it's another feminist driven tactic where you pitt women against men (because that's what has been happening since the beginning of time right?) and once the women lose, bring out the feminoms with their trumpets and banner to hold a parade about how "you can't compare men and women, men have more muscles....".
When I was in 7th grade, I'd practice with the old Portland Fire, an early WNBA team. Some of the starters were way better than me (Jackie Stiles, Sophia Witherspoon), but I was just as good as everybody else, and actually better than their bench players.
Note: I'm not that great at basketball, but I was just stronger and could jump higher than all of them.
I beat the canadian women's hockey team when I was 17 in midget AAA.
This reminds me of when the 2010 Canadian women's hockey team(gold champions) played my local major junior hockey team in a non contact game. The league(qmjhl) is among the best in Canada for guys aged 17-20 and they crushed the women. Imagine if it was contact which is one of the biggest factors in hockey.
i've always said, if ww3 broke out, gender roles would come back with fashion. women would suddenly realized their position in life and let the men take charge. it would be time to put up or shut up. there would be no excuses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onNBxynagXE
When i was was in university in Maastricht me and some friends played baskettball for fun maybe once a week.none if us played baskettball from Childs age. We all played football since were from germany and thats just the way it is. 2 of the guys were really overweight like 150 kg at 1,75m (about 250-300 pounds at 5'10 in freedom units).all of us were heavy smokers and drinkers. we usually played outside so come Winter we go play in the University gym were the unis girls Team had training they trained 3 times a Week full time they had about 10 players so they could switch we couldnt and yes you guessed it they got fucked in the ass really hard. (74-10) if i remember correctly. The look on their faces priceless!
The article you linked appears to only contain 3 matches, and says the women's team won 2. What am I missing?
[permanently deleted]
I think even most women acknowledge this fact except for some crazy feminists
When I was a teen I would watch the female Olympic competitions, and I just assumed the men did similar shit but never watched. Years later I decided I had the patience for watching the men and I was totally blown away by the athleticism. It's a league or two beyond.
Not to discredit Ronda rousey here, I'm sure if you picked an average Joe off the street she would wipe the floor with him, but I just cant see her competing with any professional male mma fighter in a significantly higher weight class. She's a fantastic fighter, but she is no emelianenko. I just don't see her outperforming superior reach with inferior strength.
Any decently fit guy would demolish her with a couple weeks instruction.
The article only mentions 3 of their matches that I can see. Is there anywhere to see the rest of thatched scores? The article shows them winning two and losing one.
Back in the day I ran track in high school so I saved all of the state championship times that were published in the local paper. It happened to be a year of the summer Olympics so I compared the boys times to the women Olympics champions. Remember, these are the best female athletes in the world. But the boys were much faster. IIRC the 100M time was several tenths of a second better - which is just a tremendous difference. In essence 18 year old boys from a random state would be gold medal winners if they competed against women in the Olympics. That's how much of a physical difference there is.
To prove my point, here are the results from the 2015 State of Virginia track championships. The male 100M champion ran a 10.47 and 10 other heats ran faster than 10.75, the time of the 2012 Women's Olympic Gold Medal winner.
That tennis example is hilarious! I can't wait to troll the next feminist I meet off Tinder with that!
Haha my high school played them once. We almost won. We had most possession and shots on goal.
Our hockey team isn't even good either. We lose constantly to our rival
It isn't such an idiotic assertion if you accept there is a considerable genetic difference between the genders. "Pound for pound" is really just contrasting fighters based on their technique and their effort, not on their genetics (weight, or in this case their gender).
Did I misread the hockey article? Sounded like the women's record was 2-2, not 5 straight losses:
.........
Throw Rousey and GGG in a ring and see what pound for pound is really about.
Red Pill Alpha Joe Rogan brought to tears because Rousey beating some tomato can in Brazil is a historic moment. None of us are safe.
Eh, give Rogan a break. He's just a huge fan of MMA and Rousey is absolutely cleaning up. I agree about the talent level being vastly inferior though.
I'm in Istanbul right now, looking at that Feminist Western Countries and thinking these countries are like jokes. This whole third wave feminism bullshit and its incredible effects are like jokes. Nothing else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDvMBPZ5Bik&list=RDGRB2QTP8DpU&index=2
[permanently deleted]
I don't know much about hockey. But watch a WNBA game of the highest caliber say a conference final or something.
Then go watch an AAU summer scrimmage.
Nuff said.
The speed. The skill. The athleticism are so much of higher quality with the boys than professional grown women female athletes it's astonishing. One of my good friends little bro, is a 5 star recruit and he's only 13. Honestly, the kid could probably play D2 and maybe some D1 teams right now.
He'd utterly crush any and all female "professional" ballers. Kids been dunking since he was 11 and is 6"5' with a 38 inch vert.... 13 years old.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o9xjs2fWJEs this is what happens when Rhonda trains with an eastern block mens fighter that doesn't give one shit about making her look good. She gets so frustrated.
Lol. He does not give a fuck.
I have a pretty good story that follows this idea. I recent did the mud hero obstacle course with a group from my gym, it was most women and a few guys. Us guys demolished the girls in our group by a minimum of 5 minutes. Most of the girls got in the top 15, and the guys barely made the Top 100.
This is one of those threads where after the point has been made (and made again, and again and again), it degrades into a circle jerk.
It's a nice fact to think about especially if you're in the anger phase, (you mad bro?) but I don't think this has very much to do with "male sexual strategy"
Well it has turned into a bit of a circle jerk, the main link is to challenge your feminised beliefs about gender and in doing so be more likely to challenge your feminised beliefs about sexual strategy. It's not particularly relevant to the more advanced guys, but for someone stumbling across this sort of stuff for the first time it will be thought provoking
As a College wrestler who competed in Amateur MMA, and grappled at the pro level--I was aware of this long ago. Female Black belts and professional boxers at my gym train with amateur guys and we would see the reality long every week. The general population is a bunch of lazy fucks who have no idea what goes on in the gym so I am not surprised by this constant male athlete = female athlete bullshit.
I don't know how or why this is getting this many upvotes and this much discussion. Its basic biology, clearly men are stronger faster and more coordinated. That is scientific fact, there is really nothing to discuss. Much in the same way that we don't argue with flat earthers, creationists or racists.
The average male has better grip strength than elite female strength athletes. That's just a microcosm of how superior we are as physical beings. We just have the better genetics.
Only idiots think Rousey is the best pound for pound fighter. Of course women can't reasonably compete with men in their weight class, that's why there are separate divisions for men an women. I shudder to think what Dillashaw, Barao, or Faber would do to Rousey in a sanctioned fight.
Hockey is a poor example. It relies heavily on player size. It can't really be played without some shoving around - especially in America.
Yes, maybe the women got outplayed (and it's quite possible that they did), but I just wanted to point out that this isn't even nearly fair. Put a men's rugby team against a women's rugby team and it would be a complete wipe. Any sport where your physical size is highly important to the game makes for a poor comparison in male vs female.
Pick a sport, any sport. Pick an activity or pursuit, any, and you'll see women are inferior at it to men.
It isn't fair. That's the point.
The US olympic hockey team typically scores 1:10 against Canada's team, so I can totally believe it without even looking at more rationale.
How is this even remotely related to sexual strategy?
Exactly my question, especially in light of the recent sticky post "The Red Pill is Sexual Strategy".
Doubtless, arguments can be laid out that move ponderously and with gravitas from the neo-feminist tropes to the need for men to recognize how much the real differences between the sexes are being sidelined in the advancement of feminist goals - and the detriment of men to their sexual disadvantage. And from there on to the cliche that recognizing a situation is the first step in improving it.
But as far as actual sexual strategy is concerned, I'd say the answer to your question is zero.
(Edit for spelling)
First thing that came to mind. No sane, logical man thinks that women are actually physically comparable to men, so why bother with the post?
Is MRA leaking?
maybe if they spent more time practicing hockey then painting their fingernails and worrying bout their teeth that wouldn't of happened.
Don't most of Rousey's fights end in submission though? She doesn't necessarily have to be stronger than her hypothetical make opponent as long as she's more technical. It doesn't take an obscene amount of physical pressure to put someone in enough pain to make them tap and I think we can agree that Rousey is totally capable of doing that to anyone.
Personally, I think Rousey is an incredible fighter amidst horrible ones. All but I believe one of her fights were handled by her mercilessly and quickly. I think that speaks more to the incompetence of her peers than the magnitude of her ability. It's difficult to gauge just how skilled she is because of this. It's like racing a corvette against a swarm of Honda civics. Yes it wins but what was it winning against?
Rousey is a bad bitch. There's really no arguing that. She could arguably take down most untrained men. But in the ring with a man of her weight class? I honestly think it depends on how she approaches the fight. Standing up trading blows? She's likely not going to last. But if she can get them on the ground and maneuver into a submission? She's got s strong chance leaving as a winner. She doesn't have to be stronger than her opponent, just strong enough to apply the correct amount of pressure to their bones/joints.
Rousey fights scrubs. All but Miesha Tate have been terrible fighters. Beating your opponent in 15 to 30 seconds almost every time shows that opponents are garbage. Does Jon Jones beat everyone in,a few seconds? How about super hard punchers like JDS?
And if Floyd Mayweather sat still and let you keep punching him in the face you'd have a strong chance of knocking him out.
[permanently deleted]
She knows how to. That doesn't mean she would (or could), especially against somebody her size and skill level with a strength advantage who is actively resisting.
Have you ever trained a grappling art?
[permanently deleted]
Male and female gymnasts don't even compete in the same events, as the men's are too hard for women.
I watched the gymnastics at the Commonwealth Games last year. After a while, I got fed up with the women's events, and looked forward to the mens. They just got on with it, beautiful skill, genuine strength and flexibility. The women spent so much time being 'arty', just silly waving of their hands while standing on the beam and such -like. Who cares? We only put them up there to do somersaults and the like, why bother with all that crap? It really looked like they were padding it out to give themselves a breather. The men were full-on, fantastic athletes.
Go watch male solo skaters and then watch female solo skaters. The men do much more technical moves than the women.
She arguably is the p4p #1 fighter in the world, no one in her division comes close. Mayweather is a business man before he is a fighter and whilst amazing, he's no where near as far ahead of the pack that Rhonda is. The same can be said for Klitschko. Her division is the key, the lack of competition.
Then to add to the confusion, she could beat Mayweather in a street fight, as per mma vs boxing goes. Most competent brown belts in BJJ could imo.
Doesn't mean Rhonda could beat a guy in her division. Even going down a division on the male side to a lower weight class to make up for the breast tissue, it would still be interesting at best. MMDJ could even be too fast and strong for her, and he's child like in size.
"She arguably is p4p #1 fighter in the world"
"Doesn't mean Rhonda could beat a guy in her division"
You just contradicted yourself.
She fights in the female 135 division, I probably should of said weightclass there.
Mayweather would wreck her in any kind of fight. Mma is not like some sort of secret magic where just because you've been training years means you'll automatically beat anyone who hasn't.
What's Mayweathers path to victory? The second he's in punching range he would be clinched up with no space to punch... Then he would be helpless. Did you not wrestle in high school?
His path to victory is being an elite male athlete. Ronda beats up scrubs because that's all the women's division is full of. Womens mma hasnt been around that long at all, and like many new sports/ those with few participants the best player looks a lot more dominant than they actually are. Floyd is taller, heavier, stronger and faster. You can be taught enough wrestling moves in a few sessions to avoid the obviously dangerous shit and let your natural physical advantages win out. Shit is not rocket science, and it's not like he hasn't been doing combat sports his entire life, like, do you really think he has absolutely no idea what to do if someone clinches him? He's a boxer, not a fucking retard (despite his reading problems).
Like straw men much? Jesus dude this is cringe-worthy. We are superior athletes due to physiological differences. Crowing about it makes you sound like a teenage autist.
It's what you do with what you have that earns you respect. Being born with good genes is just dumb luck. Perhaps (I don't know) female athletes even require greater mental dedication and strength to reach the level they can. If so, more respect to them.