On thinking it over...
What does it mean for something to be "a real man's sport?" From the context of this thread it would appear that most of you think it means an activity which poses a significant risk of serious injury. I don't find anything particularly manly about that, in fact I think that's foolish. I was a pretty fair athlete in my long gone youth, back when I had a beautiful body
, and I played basketball and football (Canadian version) at least competently, though nobody would have called me a star on my high school teams. It was fun, kept me in shape, and provided a certain social status, but I never felt it had anything to do with being a real man. I took the academic stuff pretty seriously too, and that's what really mattered to me, even as a callow youth. It was about qualifying for university, getting an education, getting scholarships so I wouldn't beggar my parents, being able to take care of myself and those I loved...
Well, maybe I'm taking this all too seriously. Bottom line for me: there's no such thing as "a real man's sport." The phrase is meaningless to me. There are merely sports played at various levels by men and women and none of them in any sense define anything meaningful about "real men" or "real women," whatever the Hell those phrases might mean. But somehow it seems appropriate to remark that most people would acknowledge that ice hockey is a real man's sport, requiring strength, speed, skill, stamina, and wits. And I'd bet the Canadian and United States national women's hockey teams could give any but the best half dozen NHL teams a serious run for their money. You would also find it instructive to look at the Olympic records for men and women. The best male athletes consistently outperform the best female athletes, but if today's female athletes had been performing in the 1950s, they'd have beaten the pants off the men in every event. Uh... perhaps that's an inappropriate metaphor.
The performance gap is narrowing, and don't bet the farm that the women will never close it.
What does it mean for something to be "a real man's sport?" From the context of this thread it would appear that most of you think it means an activity which poses a significant risk of serious injury. I don't find anything particularly manly about that, in fact I think that's foolish. I was a pretty fair athlete in my long gone youth, back when I had a beautiful body
, and I played basketball and football (Canadian version) at least competently, though nobody would have called me a star on my high school teams. It was fun, kept me in shape, and provided a certain social status, but I never felt it had anything to do with being a real man. I took the academic stuff pretty seriously too, and that's what really mattered to me, even as a callow youth. It was about qualifying for university, getting an education, getting scholarships so I wouldn't beggar my parents, being able to take care of myself and those I loved... Well, maybe I'm taking this all too seriously. Bottom line for me: there's no such thing as "a real man's sport." The phrase is meaningless to me. There are merely sports played at various levels by men and women and none of them in any sense define anything meaningful about "real men" or "real women," whatever the Hell those phrases might mean. But somehow it seems appropriate to remark that most people would acknowledge that ice hockey is a real man's sport, requiring strength, speed, skill, stamina, and wits. And I'd bet the Canadian and United States national women's hockey teams could give any but the best half dozen NHL teams a serious run for their money. You would also find it instructive to look at the Olympic records for men and women. The best male athletes consistently outperform the best female athletes, but if today's female athletes had been performing in the 1950s, they'd have beaten the pants off the men in every event. Uh... perhaps that's an inappropriate metaphor.
The performance gap is narrowing, and don't bet the farm that the women will never close it.
