We're way out of my comfort zone now I'm afraid. I've just always thought that in terms of this sport, and quite a number of others, it's the opportunities that women have been afforded rather than the talent that has held them back.
He said they are equal and can compete equally, you said they aren't. Now I have no idea what the truth is but that's what you both said.
That's a very good point. The default seems to be men are the stronger competitor and that women are occasionally equal to them rather than men occasionally being equal to women. I would assume (but could be wrong) that's because sport tends to require a level of physical ability and strength of some sort which biologically favours men so the default is rightly that in order to be mixed the women have to be equal to the men, not the other way round. However that doesn't explain why it's how it's phrased in ALL sports.
Just to clarify this, I think men and women are equal in the sport of curling. I also think men and women are equal in many other sports. That's it, that's my point, no other.
Well so far on the day the women's team won gold we've had the Eve Muirhead post and this one. We didn't get simular when the men won the silver.
Well at least we can now understand why there's no equality. To even suggest that's something we should perhaps aim for results in whatever the hell this has been.
I don't know how you've taken this the way you have Helen, but reading it all in one go I think you might have misinterpreted this completely wrong. The thread doesn't at any point play down the achievements of the women's team winning their gold medal in curling. There's not an ounce of suggestion on that front. All it tries to do is highlight, or ask an open question, as to why in a sport where there's no obvious benefit to being male or female is there split teams/competition. Where some women might be as good, if not better, than some men, and where some men might be as good, if not better, than some women, why are they split in to different competitions and not all inclusive? It's supportive of a more level playing field in sport for women, where there really is just 'the sport' and no need for it to be a segregated competition based on sex. It was also a fairly friendly OP trying to be inquisitive rather than controversial, confrontational, or disrespectful. In my opinion.
I don't know enough about curling to know if that's the case in all honesty, Tennis has mixed doubles as does curling but no one is denying that the mens game is more powerful in tennis. You only have to watch some of the male shots this competition to see the difference. It just gets very tiring sometimes to have women achieve and then threads like the Eve Muirhead one.
A bit like how Jamdrop has posted for years about how she finds certain footballers attractive? And that's putting it mildly. Also this thread never even mentioned her. Jay never even mentioned her. Yet you pounced on him and accused him of things that were clearly false
Nothing wrong in finding folk attractive. Its just when it's the only think that gets mentioned on a day in which they've topped their sport.
I'm supporting Helen on this one - An all-women Curling Team become Olympic Champions - going one better than the men's team and we have a thread about whether or not we should have men and women in the same team. My guess is that had the men won no one would have suggested that there should be mixed teams. As said in an earlier post the 'justification' for mixed sports is that in some sports women are equal to men - we never hear it said that we should have mixed teams because 'men are equal to women.' You say that to provide a more level playing field for women there is no need for some sports to be segregated. Why not talk of having a level playing field for men by having mixed teams in some sport. The underlying theme in this thread and in your post is that men in some sports like curling are in the dominant/superior position and that it may benefit 'inferior' women to join them. The progression is that women and women's achievements are diminished. e.g. In Eve Muirhead we have the Worlds best Curling player yet we have a thread on this board from someone who would 'like to give her one!'
Except that isn't all that's been mentioned is it. In fact it isn't even mentioned in this thread except by you.
Hello Mr professionally offended. Is it women you're offended for today? When is homosexual day? Does that come before or after disabled day or transgender day? I believe you get offended on behalf of kittens on the 2nd Tuesday in march and on behalf of gingers in April but it's really hard to keep track with you dustani
Support Helen all you like. But I don't think you're supporting a stance that has any relevance to the thread. It wasn't about success and it wasn't just about Curling. It was a valid and fair observation about a sport and didn't diminish any achievements. The men still won a silver which is amazing in itself - bettered by the women with an incredible gold. The reason that people often say women being equal to men, is because it tends to be when women aren't that sports are separated. It's not a dig, it isn't misogynist, and it's not a bad thing to say.
One thing that has come to light in the two finals was that experience was key. And @SuperTyke , having empathy to another viewpoint isn't being professionally offended, no need to be so nasty about it.
