Is there a reason I haven't seen any women players in professional sports?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Okay, normally I've never been much interested in sports, but every time I see my dad watch football on TV or someone watch baseball on their TV, one thing has always bothered me.

Why haven't I seen any women play professional sports? Seriously, I've never seen any female players within the Denver Broncos, or New York Yankees. The only points where I ever saw women play sports professionally were in organizations separate from the likes of NFL or MLB on Premium Channel cable. Why is that?

Even back when I first noticed this as an 8-year-old boy I thought the whole thing seemed arbitrarily sexist, I've seen females play sports with all the same capacity as their male counterparts. So why does it seem like there's an unwritten "No Girls Allowed" rule in groups the NFL or MLB?

Why are these groups unwilling to let women play in the same teams as men? and why haven't I heard of anyone accuse them of sexism over it?

The difference in physical attributes isn't sexist, it's just there. Watch an average Tennis match for men's and then women and you'll generally see a difference over time in shot speed, movement around the court, etc etc.

Women do have their own teams and leagues etc, the reason you don't see them though, may very well be sexist. Women's sports aren't given as much priority airtime as men's, because it's believed that few people will watch it. This does indeed seem to be the case, however whether that's because their threory is true, or it's a self fulfilling prophecy because of the airtimes allowed on TV, is another matter.

Um...maybe you're not watching the right channels?

I turn on the news, it's pretty standard to see female sports.

Squilookle:
The difference in physical attributes isn't sexist, it's just there. Watch an average Tennis match for men's and then women and you'll generally see a difference over time in shot speed, movement around the court, etc etc.

Women do have their own teams and leagues etc, the reason you don't see them though, may very well be sexist. Women's sports aren't given as much priority airtime as men's, because it's believed that few people will watch it. This does indeed seem to be the case, however whether that's because their threory is true, or it's a self fulfilling prophecy because of the airtimes allowed on TV, is another matter.

Pretty much this.

Also, it's somewhat sport dependent. Have you ever seen a men's volleyball game? I'm going to guess not because no one cares about men's volleyball, but women's volleyball gets decent viewership.

There's definitely some sports where I don't understand men and women not playing together. Golf for example. Golf is a skill game, strength and speed isn't important in it, so I don't see men having an advantage, so why does it need separate leagues?

Misterian:
Okay, normally I've never been much interested in sports, but every time I see my dad watch football on TV or someone watch baseball on their TV, one thing has always bothered me.

Why haven't I seen any women play professional sports? Seriously, I've never seen any female players within the Denver Broncos, or New York Yankees. The only points where I ever saw women play sports professionally were in organizations separate from the likes of NFL or MLB on Premium Channel cable. Why is that?

Even back when I first noticed this as an 8-year-old boy I thought the whole thing seemed arbitrarily sexist, I've seen females play sports with all the same capacity as their male counterparts. So why does it seem like there's an unwritten "No Girls Allowed" rule in groups the NFL or MLB?

Why are these groups unwilling to let women play in the same teams as men? and why haven't I heard of anyone accuse them of sexism over it?

Depends on the sport. In Golf, Tennis and Swimming I find men and women tend to get a fairly even showing. Tennis especially.

Gordon_4:

Misterian:
Okay, normally I've never been much interested in sports, but every time I see my dad watch football on TV or someone watch baseball on their TV, one thing has always bothered me.

Why haven't I seen any women play professional sports? Seriously, I've never seen any female players within the Denver Broncos, or New York Yankees. The only points where I ever saw women play sports professionally were in organizations separate from the likes of NFL or MLB on Premium Channel cable. Why is that?

Even back when I first noticed this as an 8-year-old boy I thought the whole thing seemed arbitrarily sexist, I've seen females play sports with all the same capacity as their male counterparts. So why does it seem like there's an unwritten "No Girls Allowed" rule in groups the NFL or MLB?

Why are these groups unwilling to let women play in the same teams as men? and why haven't I heard of anyone accuse them of sexism over it?

Depends on the sport. In Golf, Tennis and Swimming I find men and women tend to get a fairly even showing. Tennis especially.

Do you remember when they started the womans AFL league and no TV station would broadcast it. Then it was really popular online

Dirty Hipsters:

There's definitely some sports where I don't understand men and women not playing together. Golf for example. Golf is a skill game, strength and speed isn't important in it, so I don't see men having an advantage, so why does it need separate leagues?

I could argue that strength is important if only for the distance the shot can be taken, but considering golf has an in-built equaliser (that being different tee-off points for men and women) then yeah, there's really no reason they can't play together. Maybe they just want to televise twice the number of players in twice the tournaments or something, I dunno.

Volleyball, Tennis, Women Soccer League(or whatever is it called in the US)... What about olympic sports?

Because they never figured out that if you do weight/skill classes, that it will naturally segregate itself while still allowing those few exceptions have their chance.

If you mean men and women playing in the same team/against each other, the answer is simply physical differences.
If you mean women's sports as in their own thing, they're there, most channels just don't wanna broadcast them. Maybe they're impopular because nobody broadcasts them, maybe they don't broadcast them because they're impopular. Egg-chicken scenario. Who knows.

trunkage:

Gordon_4:

Misterian:
Okay, normally I've never been much interested in sports, but every time I see my dad watch football on TV or someone watch baseball on their TV, one thing has always bothered me.

Why haven't I seen any women play professional sports? Seriously, I've never seen any female players within the Denver Broncos, or New York Yankees. The only points where I ever saw women play sports professionally were in organizations separate from the likes of NFL or MLB on Premium Channel cable. Why is that?

Even back when I first noticed this as an 8-year-old boy I thought the whole thing seemed arbitrarily sexist, I've seen females play sports with all the same capacity as their male counterparts. So why does it seem like there's an unwritten "No Girls Allowed" rule in groups the NFL or MLB?

Why are these groups unwilling to let women play in the same teams as men? and why haven't I heard of anyone accuse them of sexism over it?

Depends on the sport. In Golf, Tennis and Swimming I find men and women tend to get a fairly even showing. Tennis especially.

Do you remember when they started the womans AFL league and no TV station would broadcast it. Then it was really popular online

I'm going to be part f the problem and say I do not remember. But I am unsurprised.

I believe sharpshooting is coed in the olympics. But yeah that's kinda it. Natural differences make women unable to compete with men. A simple example of it I know is the 100m dash. The times put up by the best women runners are times that the average male HS or college runners are expected to be able to put up.

Its simple biology. Women, on average, are not as strong or fast as men. Male muscle fibers are thicker, and their twitch speed is faster. For example the female world record 1mile run 4.12mins. The united State men's Highschool 1mile record is 3.53mins. So the fastest teenage boy in America is faster than the fastest woman in the world. Its the same for the 100m, 400m, 800m, down the line male highschool records are faster than female world records. And those boys aren't fully mature. Legs muscles in runners hit the peak in their 30s, not teens.

With that level of physical disparity, it wouldn't be fair to have mixed professional sports. That's why we have mens and womens events in the olympics. Yes of course there will be outliers, women who can compete, but you'd wouldn't have enough to make entire teams of them or have more than 1 or 2 in an entire league.

Now there are female leagues and those are doing just fine

Squilookle:

Dirty Hipsters:

There's definitely some sports where I don't understand men and women not playing together. Golf for example. Golf is a skill game, strength and speed isn't important in it, so I don't see men having an advantage, so why does it need separate leagues?

I could argue that strength is important if only for the distance the shot can be taken, but considering golf has an in-built equaliser (that being different tee-off points for men and women) then yeah, there's really no reason they can't play together. Maybe they just want to televise twice the number of players in twice the tournaments or something, I dunno.

If strength was that important then Tiger Woods wouldn't be the best golf player based on his little match stick arms.

Squilookle:
The difference in physical attributes isn't sexist, it's just there. Watch an average Tennis match for men's and then women and you'll generally see a difference over time in shot speed, movement around the court, etc etc.

Women do have their own teams and leagues etc, the reason you don't see them though, may very well be sexist. Women's sports aren't given as much priority airtime as men's, because it's believed that few people will watch it. This does indeed seem to be the case, however whether that's because their threory is true, or it's a self fulfilling prophecy because of the airtimes allowed on TV, is another matter.

Play styles are routiely different, however. I mean the primary indicator of serve speed is height as it gives the greatest clearance over the net, while allowing the greatest depth at velocity. But someone like Michael Chang was fun to watch as a kid because of play style alone. Pete Samphras was interesting to analyze as he probably represented best an idea of the strategy of the game and its endurance and play economy.

Technology alone is ending the serve and volley mainstay in men's tennis as both serve speed, and return, does not permit it most of the time.

Which is why women's tennis is often more interesting to watch in the technicalities of the sport and what 'made it fun'. Tennis will always be an interesting sport, either men's or women's, given it's the only sport I know where you can lose more games and still win the match through thoughtful, strategic play.

And a lot of that is disappearing in the men's side of things that will likely be personified best in women's tennis. Particularly if they ever extend grand slam sets for them. The one thing I really don't like about the game now is the whiny-ness. Tennis is supposed to be an endurance sport, but with the combination of better racquet design as well as focus on power and depth of play, and how they're tailoring even grand slam matches to be shorter and less difficult to close, threatens to turn it merely into a 'jock's game' ...

And tennis shouldn't be treated like that. I'd be fine with limiting racquet design or creating a 'regulation racquet type' if it means bringing back technicality, endurance play and actual finesse rather than the age of the double-handed backhand and simply practicing ground strokes and serves all fucking day long.

Modern tennis racquets just give players topspin now. Doesn't matter their skill level. You used to practice hard as a kid getting that 3000+ rpm on the old 10'' composites as a basic ground stroke ... now you throw some bleeding edge racquet design in their face and they get given it largely for free. Modern 11'' tennis racquets basically give noobs the means to check general topspin on basic groundstrokes to maintain control of the ball with reduced loss of power applied to swing while still keeping it in play.

Technology alone is making strokes thoughtless. It will get to the ridiculous point where racquet design alone will require a ball change every 7 games rather than the 7-9-9 model, simply because every shot will shear them to fucking hell when they bounce off cement.

Tennis is supposed to be the 'holistic sport' ... high fitness, maintaining bursts of controlled power, finesse and ultra-precise muscle memory and control, quick reflexes, and honing the mind to interpret all aspects of the opponent and to maintain your concentration and endurance for hours on end. But the whinyness and technology is supplanting natural capability.

Hawki:
Um...maybe you're not watching the right channels?

I turn on the news, it's pretty standard to see female sports.

Not everywhere gets the same channels. Especially in regions where Sinclair media has a monopoly you are more likely to see "The 700 Club" marathons than female sports. When I went to visit my sister out in West Texas, I figured out why they kept their television off when I turned it on and there was Evangelical broadcasting on every single station.

Squilookle:

Dirty Hipsters:

There's definitely some sports where I don't understand men and women not playing together. Golf for example. Golf is a skill game, strength and speed isn't important in it, so I don't see men having an advantage, so why does it need separate leagues?

I could argue that strength is important if only for the distance the shot can be taken, but considering golf has an in-built equaliser (that being different tee-off points for men and women) then yeah, there's really no reason they can't play together. Maybe they just want to televise twice the number of players in twice the tournaments or something, I dunno.

It started as a boys club issue (girls weren't allowed on a lot of golf courses for a long time, and some remain exclusive), but at this stage I think its basically evened out to simply be what you suggested. On an individual basis golf tournaments make crazy bank between sponsorships, ads, ticket sales and viewership. Nobody in their right mind would ever say "yeah lets go ahead and cut the money we get in half". The compromise is now we are starting to have all the old tournaments PLUS mixed gender tournaments, which is basically the best outcome there could be from the organizers point of view. And the viewer if you're one of those people who just enjoy watching every tournament every year. From the players perspective it may not actually be the best, because the more tournaments there are that you aren't competing in the less visibility you have for sponsorship deals, and you really have to choose which tournaments you even try to qualify for each year.

Silentpony:
Its simple biology. Women, on average, are not as strong or fast as men. Male muscle fibers are thicker, and their twitch speed is faster. For example the female world record 1mile run 4.12mins. The united State men's Highschool 1mile record is 3.53mins. So the fastest teenage boy in America is faster than the fastest woman in the world. Its the same for the 100m, 400m, 800m, down the line male highschool records are faster than female world records. And those boys aren't fully mature. Legs muscles in runners hit the peak in their 30s, not teens.

With that level of physical disparity, it wouldn't be fair to have mixed professional sports. That's why we have mens and womens events in the olympics. Yes of course there will be outliers, women who can compete, but you'd wouldn't have enough to make entire teams of them or have more than 1 or 2 in an entire league.

Now there are female leagues and those are doing just fine

While this is true, we've also been selecting men and women for particular roles for hundreds of years. Selecting differently would decrease differences. There is also more money available for training male athletes. Better coaches, supplements, nutritional advice would improve females performance. Many women still have to hold a job becuase the pay is very low, so they don't get anywhere near the time to exercise or practice. There was a woman here who played for soccer and cricket national team at the same time and still struggled to make a living.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think females will completely catch up to men. I think they can get much closer than they are now. Some of it will be genetics and some how we spend money on the different genders.

Not every man is as capable as most male professional athletes. Rhonda Rousey would last far better in the NFL than Jon Stewart. I think we should ignore sex and go based on actual physical and technical ability. As I said before, it would still likely naturally filter the sexes, but this way those outliers, ie stronger women, weaker men, would be put in appropriate brackets of ability. Humans are an inconsistant species.

Dirty Hipsters:

Squilookle:

Dirty Hipsters:

There's definitely some sports where I don't understand men and women not playing together. Golf for example. Golf is a skill game, strength and speed isn't important in it, so I don't see men having an advantage, so why does it need separate leagues?

I could argue that strength is important if only for the distance the shot can be taken, but considering golf has an in-built equaliser (that being different tee-off points for men and women) then yeah, there's really no reason they can't play together. Maybe they just want to televise twice the number of players in twice the tournaments or something, I dunno.

If strength was that important then Tiger Woods wouldn't be the best golf player based on his little match stick arms.

If strength was how important? As important as I said it was?

Because I said it was important solely for shot distance, nothing more.

Nobody is saying that's all there is to golf.

Saelune:
Not every man is as capable as most male professional athletes. Rhonda Rousey would last far better in the NFL than Jon Stewart.

Am I bad person for wanting to see those tryouts?

I always feel it's important to point out that the people that inhabit professional sports are already on the fringes of human physical ability most of the time. Generally in societies that discourage women from developing the same raw physicality that is encouraged in men. A lot of supposed "human nature" may not actually be. (An internet argument I got in recently tried to say that "interacting with people's poop is unhealthy" was basic human nature, but it wasn't something Europe figured out until the 1800s, sooo...)

It's just damn hard to test, given that we can't section off a portion of humanity as a control group. Not ethically, anyway.

There's significantly more overlap than sexists like to admit when you move inward from the outliers.

Gordon_4:

Depends on the sport. In Golf, Tennis and Swimming I find men and women tend to get a fairly even showing. Tennis especially.

Which really highlights the pay disparity that exists in those sports, despite similar coverage. (I only know about tennis, where men's prize money is typically higher: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/ng-interactive/2018/jul/14/tennis-pay-gap-shouldnt-be-gender-based)

Saelune:
Not every man is as capable as most male professional athletes. Rhonda Rousey would last far better in the NFL than Jon Stewart.

Almost definitely, but she'd still be flattened by the people who actually are in the NFL. Pretty sure you aren't allowed to use arm bars in football.

Why some teams don't play together, I might consider it dexual dymophism. Men tend to be bigger and stronger, and this only gets worse when steroids are added tot he mix. It would be a massacre for the average female athlete going against the average male football or rugby player.

Others, I don't see much a difference as skill and team work are a higher priority. I've seen this to be the case with my friend's Special Olympic Basketball where players are divided by skill level and NOT gender. I can attest to this with baseball and soccer as well, regular ed and otherwise.

I also think there needs to be more battle of the sexes matches. Seriously, who wouldn't want to see Ronda Rowsy pumme the male chamion in her weight class.

Speaking of which, I might be wrong but weight class might have more to do with martial arts type sports because someone built lean and mean vs a mighty glaciure is rather unfair. Or more to the point

image

Saelune:
Not every man is as capable as most male professional athletes. Rhonda Rousey would last far better in the NFL than Jon Stewart. I think we should ignore sex and go based on actual physical and technical ability. As I said before, it would still likely naturally filter the sexes, but this way those outliers, ie stronger women, weaker men, would be put in appropriate brackets of ability. Humans are an inconsistant species.

I mean you're not wrong, but Rhonda Rousey wouldn't last 10seconds. She's an incredible female athlete, but as I pointed out based on world records, an incredible world class female athlete isn't as good as an incredible male highschool athlete. She'd probably struggle in High School football, let alone College or Professional.
She'd do miles better than most men, yes, but football players are an already elite class of men.

trunkage:

Silentpony:
Its simple biology. Women, on average, are not as strong or fast as men. Male muscle fibers are thicker, and their twitch speed is faster. For example the female world record 1mile run 4.12mins. The united State men's Highschool 1mile record is 3.53mins. So the fastest teenage boy in America is faster than the fastest woman in the world. Its the same for the 100m, 400m, 800m, down the line male highschool records are faster than female world records. And those boys aren't fully mature. Legs muscles in runners hit the peak in their 30s, not teens.

With that level of physical disparity, it wouldn't be fair to have mixed professional sports. That's why we have mens and womens events in the olympics. Yes of course there will be outliers, women who can compete, but you'd wouldn't have enough to make entire teams of them or have more than 1 or 2 in an entire league.

Now there are female leagues and those are doing just fine

While this is true, we've also been selecting men and women for particular roles for hundreds of years. Selecting differently would decrease differences. There is also more money available for training male athletes. Better coaches, supplements, nutritional advice would improve females performance. Many women still have to hold a job becuase the pay is very low, so they don't get anywhere near the time to exercise or practice. There was a woman here who played for soccer and cricket national team at the same time and still struggled to make a living.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think females will completely catch up to men. I think they can get much closer than they are now. Some of it will be genetics and some how we spend money on the different genders.

Oh for sure. I think you could really boost female training programs. But as you point out, it may not get them into the male leagues, simply improve the female leagues.

Baffle2:

Gordon_4:

Depends on the sport. In Golf, Tennis and Swimming I find men and women tend to get a fairly even showing. Tennis especially.

Which really highlights the pay disparity that exists in those sports, despite similar coverage. (I only know about tennis, where men's prize money is typically higher: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/ng-interactive/2018/jul/14/tennis-pay-gap-shouldnt-be-gender-based)

Saelune:
Not every man is as capable as most male professional athletes. Rhonda Rousey would last far better in the NFL than Jon Stewart.

Almost definitely, but she'd still be flattened by the people who actually are in the NFL. Pretty sure you aren't allowed to use arm bars in football.

Silentpony:

Saelune:
Not every man is as capable as most male professional athletes. Rhonda Rousey would last far better in the NFL than Jon Stewart. I think we should ignore sex and go based on actual physical and technical ability. As I said before, it would still likely naturally filter the sexes, but this way those outliers, ie stronger women, weaker men, would be put in appropriate brackets of ability. Humans are an inconsistant species.

I mean you're not wrong, but Rhonda Rousey wouldn't last 10seconds. She's an incredible female athlete, but as I pointed out based on world records, an incredible world class female athlete isn't as good as an incredible male highschool athlete. She'd probably struggle in High School football, let alone College or Professional.
She'd do miles better than most men, yes, but football players are an already elite class of men.

trunkage:

Silentpony:
Its simple biology. Women, on average, are not as strong or fast as men. Male muscle fibers are thicker, and their twitch speed is faster. For example the female world record 1mile run 4.12mins. The united State men's Highschool 1mile record is 3.53mins. So the fastest teenage boy in America is faster than the fastest woman in the world. Its the same for the 100m, 400m, 800m, down the line male highschool records are faster than female world records. And those boys aren't fully mature. Legs muscles in runners hit the peak in their 30s, not teens.

With that level of physical disparity, it wouldn't be fair to have mixed professional sports. That's why we have mens and womens events in the olympics. Yes of course there will be outliers, women who can compete, but you'd wouldn't have enough to make entire teams of them or have more than 1 or 2 in an entire league.

Now there are female leagues and those are doing just fine

While this is true, we've also been selecting men and women for particular roles for hundreds of years. Selecting differently would decrease differences. There is also more money available for training male athletes. Better coaches, supplements, nutritional advice would improve females performance. Many women still have to hold a job becuase the pay is very low, so they don't get anywhere near the time to exercise or practice. There was a woman here who played for soccer and cricket national team at the same time and still struggled to make a living.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think females will completely catch up to men. I think they can get much closer than they are now. Some of it will be genetics and some how we spend money on the different genders.

Oh for sure. I think you could really boost female training programs. But as you point out, it may not get them into the male leagues, simply improve the female leagues.

Then let that be determined by giving her a chance to prove people wrong. Her genitals are not a fair judge of this.

There are plenty of men who could never handle an NFL player either, why do they deserve more of a chance than stronger women?

Saelune:
Then let that be determined by giving her a chance to prove people wrong. Her genitals are not a fair judge of this.

There are plenty of men who could never handle an NFL player either, why do they deserve more of a chance than stronger women?

I think it's pretty unfair of you to want Rousey to get trampled in the NFL (which she would) just to prove a point (which it wouldn't). Has she even said she wants to play in the NFL?!

Baffle2:

Saelune:
Then let that be determined by giving her a chance to prove people wrong. Her genitals are not a fair judge of this.

There are plenty of men who could never handle an NFL player either, why do they deserve more of a chance than stronger women?

I think it's pretty unfair of you to want Rousey to get trampled in the NFL (which she would) just to prove a point (which it wouldn't). Has she even said she wants to play in the NFL?!

I was just using her as an example of a strong woman.

I just want the option for those who are the exception to have the opportunity to prove it.

Hay, Selune, and anyone else that is Trans, where would Trans players fit in this dichotomy because I know this has caused some controversy in the Olympics with one of the women's track and field participants a few years back.

Again, its me speaking from ignorance, but assuming the individual was taking the medications needed to increase/decrease the hormones in the body, wouldn't that offset the supposed advantages/deficiencies of the genders?

I see no reason that darts would have separate competitions, as long as everyone can put their opponent off equally: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/nov/17/stink-hits-darts-grand-slam-as-match-features-flatulent-end

But, darts isn't really a sport.

saint of m:
Hay, Selune, and anyone else that is Trans, where would Trans players fit in this dichotomy because I know this has caused some controversy in the Olympics with one of the women's track and field participants a few years back.

Again, its me speaking from ignorance, but assuming the individual was taking the medications needed to increase/decrease the hormones in the body, wouldn't that offset the supposed advantages/deficiencies of the genders?

I think gender segregation should be removed and replaced with just flat out ability to perform, so it would absolve this issue.

But if people want to segregate on sex, then transwomen are going to be women, and so people will have to suck it up if a transwoman does better than a biological one.

Gender/sex segregation IS discrimination. People can try to say it is justified discrimination, but it still is what it is.

I mean, white people would hate if all white people were inherently barred from the NBA, wouldn't they? And there is the occasional Asian player, even though average height for Asians is typically very low for men and women.

People need to stop looking at sports as if it needs to be based on the average person. By definition professional athletes are the exception to typical humans, and we should judge them based on their actual abilities, not what we think their abilities should be based on average stats.

Given that many athletes earn a living through prize money, you're arguing for a pay cut for female athletes if it turns out they can't beat people who have a significant natural advantage.

I'd be quite happy to see mixed sports, but I think for athletes' sake I'd have it as a separate league that people could compete in (as well as competing in their non-mixed leagues). I feel the same about having a drug-user league where people can have as many steroids as they want, but they can only compete in the 'roid league.

Saelune:
SNIP

they dont. Most men can't handle NFL players, yes, but most men arent recruited. Recruiters look for specific qualities, and genitals arent one of them. It just so happens men bilogocailly are larger and stronger so if you're looking for large strong players you're better off looking for male players. The average NFL player is 6"2 250lbs. Ronda Rousey is 5"6, 130lbs. She is simply out classed in size and weight. And at that differential level, skill doesn't matter. She could train her whole life to play football and she'd bounce off the average player. And that's not because of her vagina, its because of the physical characteristics of the female body vs the body of men chosen for above average size and weight

Silentpony:

Saelune:
SNIP

they dont. Most men can't handle NFL players, yes, but most men arent recruited. Recruiters look for specific qualities, and genitals arent one of them. It just so happens men bilogocailly are larger and stronger so if you're looking for large strong players you're better off looking for male players. The average NFL player is 6"2 250lbs. Ronda Rousey is 5"6, 130lbs. She is simply out classed in size and weight. And at that differential level, skill doesn't matter. She could train her whole life to play football and she'd bounce off the average player. And that's not because of her vagina, its because of the physical characteristics of the female body vs the body of men chosen for above average size and weight

But what if a woman was able to hold her own?

Saelune:

Silentpony:

Saelune:
SNIP

they dont. Most men can't handle NFL players, yes, but most men arent recruited. Recruiters look for specific qualities, and genitals arent one of them. It just so happens men bilogocailly are larger and stronger so if you're looking for large strong players you're better off looking for male players. The average NFL player is 6"2 250lbs. Ronda Rousey is 5"6, 130lbs. She is simply out classed in size and weight. And at that differential level, skill doesn't matter. She could train her whole life to play football and she'd bounce off the average player. And that's not because of her vagina, its because of the physical characteristics of the female body vs the body of men chosen for above average size and weight

But what if a woman was able to hold her own?

to my knowledge there are no rules in professional sports that mandate men only teams. If there was a woman who could hold her own in the NFL or NBA or FIFA in the men's league I'm sure teams would recruit her, or at least there would be a big PR push for her.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here