[Closed] Equality in sports

i thought there a finance crisis. they've obviously better things to do in whitehall than think of the well being of the nation as a whole, not just that relatively small %age of 50% of the nation. get people playing sprts first till the point the general public give a toss.

don't think level playing field with men is the answer though.

In general I agree with her - why should Chris Hoy have the chance of winning 3 gold medals and Victoria Pendleton only 1?

What a load of crap. Women's heavy weight wrestling? Who wants to see that?

It's political correctness good mad. 🙄

Well they could introduce more women specific sports like Mud Wrestling into the olympic games.

What aracer said.

Why should a male cyclist have the opportunity to get more medals than a female simply because there are more events for men?

I read the idea somewhere that the Olympics are fundamentally racist as well. I foget quite why that was. I decided I did not care. Sorry...

But why should there be separate womens events at all? It would be the same number of medals if everyone competed in the same events.

Why should there be events for humans? Can't I just enter my greyhound in the 400m, my dolphin in the swimming, and my bear in the wrestling?

I think if Tessa Jowell had her own way it would not be good as how many women could compete with men, they would have a chance at the bigger prize but realistically what chance would they have of getting a place.
And more importantly what would happen to womans beach volleyball? 😥

There should be total equality, men & women medals for every sport. IMO the olympics has no cerdibility until it does this!

why is womens prizemoney for the same event less than the men?

jedi - Member

why is womens prizemoney for the same event less than the men?

Because they're not as good as the men?

aracer, Do you own a Zoo?

[i]There should be total equality, men & women medals for every sport. IMO the olympics has no cerdibility until it does this! [/i]

It's also biased against the genetically sub-optimal, the underfunded and the lazy. Unless they give out medals for all, it should be renamed the Eugenics.

Back under your bridge, druidh!

Although there's a proper point there somewhere. Women should compete against the men where speed/strength are not a factor. Like snooker or bowls for instance.

And there should absolutely be the same events for men and women. The situation in the cycling is a disgrace. Not to mention the prize money thing at Wimbledon (unless they fixed that already?)

If you don't want seperate Men's and Women's events, then why have U20 and U16 etc events?

I want to see rugby being played at school with the year 11s flattening the year 7s - great sport!

Not to mention the prize money thing at Wimbledon (unless they fixed that already?)

Why should women get equal prize money at Wimbledon when they only play 3 set matches ?

Not to mention the prize money thing at Wimbledon (unless they fixed that already?)

same now I think

but don't the women only play for 60% of the time the men do? [3 sets Vs 5 sets]

That's not on that - working more for the same pay 😉

I think it depends top some extent on what the point of the Olympics is. I assume it's for entertainment, I suppose. If that's right (and it doesn't entertain me personally) then that's fine, and it should consist of whatever provides entertainment. If that means 50:50 men's and women's sports then that's fine.

If actually it is about fulfilling the potential for glory of a hand-picked clique of elite sportspersons who reckon they [i]deserve[/i] the opportunity to win medals on some sort of equal basis then it [i]could[/i] be trollishly described as a massive vanity project which, for some bizarre reason, we are paying 4.2 GAZILLION pounds for the privilege of. And that is truly odd.

Why aren't the men on here also up in arms about the fact that there's no synchronized swiming event open to them?

Why aren't the men on here also up in arms about the fact that there's no synchronized swiming event open to them?

Good point. Or that thing where they dance around with a ribbon on a stick.

I dont see any reason why they shouldnt have the same number of events, if they have sufficient numbers of athletes to take part.

As for competing in the same events as the blokes, if that needs answering I think we need better biology and physics lessons in school first.

Why aren't the men on here also up in arms about the fact that there's no synchronized swiming event open to them?

If it's OK to differentiate on biology and physics, how come there aren't separate events for short folk (e.g. high jump).

If it's OK to differentiate on biology and physics, how come there aren't separate events for short folk (e.g. high jump).

Because short folk (or insert any naturally biasing attribute, such as obesity) would never compete at that level, let alone with members of the opposite sex.

But that's just my point. Surely if you're not good enough, you don't get to compete "at that level". Why have separate gender events and not separate height events?

I agree, druidh - they already have separate events in wrestling and weight lifting for smaller folks, so why not in other sports?

But that's just my point. Surely if you're not good enough, you don't get to compete "at that level". Why have separate gender events and not separate height events?

I personally wouldn't find an all-male olympics very interesting. ~And aside from that, the fact that they'd never compete would simply mean no women would ever try.

Had to chuckle when the Williams sisters proclaimed a few years ago that they could compete on the mens tennis tour.

They played a set each against Karsten Braasch, a German pro described as "a man whose training regime centred around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager."

He thrashed them 6-1 & 6-2 and smoked a ton of cigarettes during the changeovers. 😆

[i]I personally wouldn't find an all-male olympics very interesting[/i]

Yeah, but to counter that you'd add new olympic disclipines.
Flower arranging,
Shoe buying timetrial.
Arguing.
That sort of thing.

if there are far fewer female competitors than male (or vice versa) in a given event why shouyld there be the same number of medals?

Maybe the women should just get smaller medals in that case.

[i]Why aren't the men on here also up in arms about the fact that there's no synchronized swiming event open to them? [/i]
Possibly because most blokes would prefer to compete in a real sport. one which doesn't just involve grinning inanely whilst wearing a 3"-thick layer of makeup.

Druidh dearest, I challenge you to an arm wrestle.... 😉

So organise more events for women?
its not like "men" do all the organising, and are giving them a bum deal, if they want more events, stop complaining and get on the case.

I always wondered why no women rode the tour, is it because of rules?
same for football (spit spit, wash your mouth out), why are no premiership players women?

I hate equality, its only used when it suits people. you dont hear about women complaining they stand less of a chance at being binmen or sewage service workers? smaller frames would make them better at the later surely?

it should work both ways, and it doesnt.
grrrr ranty ranty

jojoA1 - Member

Druidh dearest, I challenge you to an arm wrestle....

Naked - in jelly?