DiscgolfStu
Birdie Member
I agree that's interesting info about sociological constructs of prior centuries, but not really relevant to your present point that women and men would perform equally in sports competitions if they were given equal supports.
I gave two examples that directly addressed (and refuted) that point, but you seem to have changed the subject.
Turning to irrelevant sociology stuff about the 1800s and 1900s in response to relevant hard data about current times kinda seems to me like you might be denying the science. But if I have evidence to the contrary, I will gladly revise my opinion.
Well, if you shrug the article off as irrelevant and don't see how the history of sport being objectively male-dominated affects today's landscape, then I'm not sure it's me who is denying the science. Look up the gender gap in sport participation.
Also, there are obviously numerous skills that benefit the male physiology, but there are others that do not. My point from the beginning is that it's silly to separate the sexes in those sports where physiology doesn't have such a huge affect on outcome, but we do so because of our long standing (almost subconscious) belief that women aren't as good as men at sport (and never can be!). Disc golf, ball golf, curling, billiards, there's a lot of sports out there that could be equal.
And a sport sociologist would probably look at the volleyball study and ask why is that the men performed better than women in some aspects of the game (but not all?) They'd probably look to what you call the irrelevant history of gender roles in sport and propose that men who play volleyball have probably also been encouraged to participate in numerous other complimentary sports that served to improve their overall skills throughout their life time (at a rate much higher than the women).
Anyway.