Why Are Women Considered Inherently Inferior?

[maldito]

Can you think of one sport where women are men's equal? I don't know why it is that way, but it is.

Women compete equally in Thoroughbred Racing - there are not that many of them but it is a sport where there is no distinction between sexes and strength is required - Julie Krone best female jock of all times racked up 37 million in purse money against the guys .


http://www.google.com/search?source...F-8&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS206US206&q=female+jockeys


http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/02/s...jockey-no-asterisk-needed.html?pagewanted=all

 

[JimS]

In this thread

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=142623

Jam writes:

"The women, as hard as they try, as much as they train, as often as they compete with or without the men, I just don't ever see them possessing the same capabilities as the men players."

The mechanics of the stroke have nothing to do with physical size or power, so I am mystified by the position of many here who do not believe that women could compete with men.

Billiards, in many forms, has historically been a male amusement. Hence far more men than women have been exposed to it. And since tournaments have usually been segregated, women compete against a much smaller group of women.

Much has been written here that the way to improvement is competing against better players. Is this tip gender restrictive?

Men.... lookout! In this next few years most.... I said MOST, men will have to watch some bad-ass pool playin women bury them. Get used to it. They be catchin up and forgin into the lead. :groucho:

 

[DeepBanks]

It's tough being a woman . . .

Setting priorities . . . managing stress . . . shoes to match, etc. etc..

 

[JB Cases]

I see this discussion going nowhere, as you and I assume different sides of this "advancement of women" as an argument. You're assuming men have peaked and women not. Why do you assume the men have peaked??? I don't get this..

I didn't say that the men have peaked. I said that IF we assume that they have then they aren't getting better while the women have a lot of room to grow.

I also said that the men can get better in my opinion if they apply themselves to learning other disciplines like billiards and snooker but I don't see that happening any time soon.

I am not talking about scientific models. Pool is a pretty easy sport to see performance in. Either you run out or you don't. Playing against a top player you aren't going to get a lot of opportunities through mistakes and so you have to capitalize on them.

No one who can't run an open rack will EVER beat a top pro in any race to anything. So in order to beat a top pro one has to have a certain amount of skill.

Ten years ago there were only 1 or 2 women that had any chance at all of taking any set from a top pro and their chances were slim at best.

Now there are at least a dozen women who have a decent chance to beat any top pro in any given set of a relatively short duration 7-11 games. As the sets get longer then the skill difference multiplies by the amount of unforced errors the weaker player makes.

This is progress whether you accept it or not. Now, in that same ten year span the average talent level of men has grown deeper as more men are able to get quality instruction and seasoning. So while there a more women who are nearing world class speed there are also more men getting there as well. The top speed of the top men may not be that much "better" than it was ten years ago but there are now more of them that have attained that level.

Take the dozen women who now are fully capable of earning victories against top men and transport them back ten years and they will post more victories against men back then because there would have been less competition at the very top. Now there are champion caliber players everywhere. So as the women get better as a group so to does the mount of men who are world class speed. Thus the odds are still stacked against them but the gap in skill from the top woman to the top man is definitely less than it was ten years ago.

 

[Tennesseejoe]

It's not that everyone thinks women are inferior---it's that all pool players think all other players are inferior.

Women just take it to heart a little more often.

But ladies---I THINK YOU'RE THE BEST.

 

[GFC]

There is one physical difference between men and women that does make a difference at the table and that is height. On average men are taller than women. That means that the average man has an easier time reaching some shots than the average woman. It may only effect one or two shots in a match, but one or two shots often makes the difference in the outcome of a match.
I'm sure there have been plenty of people who are shorter than average who have done well in the world of billiards, but I believe tables were designed with the average height male player in mind.
Then again, I could be way off on this one.

 

[JB Cases]

There is one physical difference between men and women that does make a difference at the table and that is height. On average men are taller than women. That means that the average man has an easier time reaching some shots than the average woman. It may only effect one or two shots in a match, but one or two shots often makes the difference in the outcome of a match.
I'm sure there have been plenty of people who are shorter than average who have done well in the world of billiards, but I believe tables were designed with the average height male player in mind.
Then again, I could be way off on this one.

Someone forgot to tell Alex Pagulayan that he is a handicaped player because he is shorter and weighs less than most women on the WPBA.

Also mastery of the bridge is essential in pool and the top ladies in pool are quite adept at using it.

 

[catscradle]

In this thread

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=142623

Jam writes:

"The women, as hard as they try, as much as they train, as often as they compete with or without the men, I just don't ever see them possessing the same capabilities as the men players."

The mechanics of the stroke have nothing to do with physical size or power, so I am mystified by the position of many here who do not believe that women could compete with men.

Billiards, in many forms, has historically been a male amusement. Hence far more men than women have been exposed to it. And since tournaments have usually been segregated, women compete against a much smaller group of women.

Much has been written here that the way to improvement is competing against better players. Is this tip gender restrictive?

The mechanics of the stroke does have to do with natural physical coordination. The average woman is just less coordinated than the average man. That is not something that is learned. It can be improved on, but each person has a base level of coordination that defines how much they can improve. Just as I'm not as coordinated with my left hand as my right, the average woman is not as coordinated as the average man. Doesn't mean there can't be some exceptional woman players, just that there can never be the number of exceptional women players as men players.

JMHO.

 

[Johnnyt]

There is one physical difference between men and women that does make a difference at the table and that is height. On average men are taller than women. That means that the average man has an easier time reaching some shots than the average woman. It may only effect one or two shots in a match, but one or two shots often makes the difference in the outcome of a match.
I'm sure there have been plenty of people who are shorter than average who have done well in the world of billiards, but I believe tables were designed with the average height male player in mind.
Then again, I could be way off on this one.

When pool tables came out the average male was 5' 5 1/2". Johnnyt

 

[inside_english]

As far as women having less stamina than men...I think not. It always amazed me that right after good sex that the woman would get up tear around the house doing housework, cooking, cleaning, maybe go out and run 3 miles, while the guy couldn't get out of bed for an hour or so. Johnnyt

Could it be that most women just have to lie there while we do all the "work?"

(Oh man, am I gonna get slammed for this...haha)

 

[pocketspeed]

The mechanics of the stroke does have to do with natural physical coordination. The average woman is just less coordinated than the average man. That is not something that is learned. It can be improved on, but each person has a base level of coordination that defines how much they can improve. Just as I'm not as coordinated with my left hand as my right, the average woman is not as coordinated as the average man. Doesn't mean there can't be some exceptional woman players, just that there can never be the number of exceptional women players as men players.

JMHO.

wow. if youre gonna make a statement like that i think you should be prepared to back it with some respectable scientific research. where are the female azb'ers in this thread?

brian

 

[akaTrigger]

wow. if youre gonna make a statement like that i think you should be prepared to back it with some respectable scientific research. where are the female azb'ers in this thread?

brian

I'm right here. I'm reading.

 

[DaveK]

Then there is the problem of the bozos ... for one example check out the reply in post 9 within this thread where a young female player asks for some guidance :

http://www.insidepoolmag.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2750

Dave

 

[jay helfert]

This assumption that women are inherently inferior in pool is FALSE!. There is NO physical or mental reason why a woman can't play just as good (or better) than a man. I could go on and give a million reasons why this is true, but I don't have the time or energy to right now. The only reason there are more good men players currently is because so many more men play the game, and have been playing it longer. No question the women are catching up, with many excellent players. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see a woman win a major tournament some day (soon).

 

[CreeDo]

As far as women having less stamina than men...I think not. It always amazed me that right after good sex that the woman would get up tear around the house doing housework, cooking, cleaning, maybe go out and run 3 miles, while the guy couldn't get out of bed for an hour or so. Johnnyt

Christ, do they have any more like that where you're from? Will she make me a sandwich right afterwards too? I'm accustomed to both of us just lying there afterwards like gutted trout.

Back on track, I thought the bit about women being less coordinated than men was interesting. I found a neat google books result:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Cd...-5CKBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2

The key line at the bottom of the page seems to be: "in general women have been shown to be superior to men on tasks involving fine motor coordination" ...but wait, now go into the next page:

"whereas men outperform women on target-directed motor skills"

The study that prompted that statement came from baseball, so that probably means "target-directed" applies to anything where you're aiming, i.e. pool.

 

[sjm]

I think a major issue is the lack of motivation a superstar woman player will generally have to reach higher in her game.

The modern women's game has known two dominating presences, Jean Balukas, who won practically every women's event she played in, and Allison Fisher, who has won roughly half of the WPBA events she has entered over thirteen full seasons played. I saw both play very often in their primes, but can only speculate as to how each thought out how to manage their development as players.

OK, put yourself in the shoes of Jean Balukas in the early 1980's. You're the best woman player ever (or at least on a par with the great Ruth McGuiness), winning every women's event in sight. You already have the Brunswick sponsorship deal, the most lucrative available of your time for a woman player. You can continue winning most women's events even if you aren't a practice room devotee, because you're that much better than your contemporaries. You are good enough to compete with, but probably not good enough to finish high in men's events with any regularity, unless you are willing to become a practice room workaholic, and even if you do, your income probably won't grow appreciably. Few presented with a similar situation would make the enormous effort required to bring their game to the next level.

OK, now you are Allison Fisher in the late 1990's. You are the best woman player in the world, bar none, and you have the lucrative Cuetec deal, meaning you have a good income from pool. The financial rewards available to you if you make the enormous sacrifices to bring your game to the higest possible level are fairly modest.

As I've noted, this is pure speculation as to how Jean and Allison approached the management of their games, but what is clear to me is that the two greatest women players ever each reached a point in their games where incremental development would require huge sacrifices and would not be especially remunerative. The top women are armed and dangerous, as they showed in Las Vegas last week, but until the undeniable superstars of women's pool have more financial incentive to raise their games to the highest possible level, I must wonder whether we should expect the top women to reach the level of the most elite men.

That's my slant on it.

 

[LAlouie]

I won't address the Balukas scenario because it was in a time long ago in a land,,,,well not so far away. But women's pool was in infancy, so if you played you played for the love of it, like so many sports in the early days when money was not an issue. You played because that's what you did best.

Love of the game and doing what you do best is what still drives pool players today. (For men it is also laziness, an insatiable gambling habit, and the search for the quick buck) What was Jeanette going to do, waitress all her life? This reason is reason enough for me to disagree with your hypothesis that lack of money keeps the women players unmotivated. They play in this chauvanist sport and deal with the cr@p they deal with because that is what they do best. Certainly more money would bring more women to the game, and maybe as you say they would be motivated to try harder. But if you posit THAT then the same must apply to the men, because this thread is about why women are not as good as men, not how much can the women progress on their own. Both games would see better play if the monies were there.

Seems to me this thread dabbles too much in conjecture and not accepting for what is. I watch the women to watch them play, not to compare them to men's play. The thought of such comparisons never enter my mind until someone feels the need to post this pointless topic.

I think a major issue is the lack of motivation a superstar woman player will generally have to reach higher in her game.

The modern women's game has known two dominating presences, Jean Balukas, who won practically every women's event she played in, and Allison Fisher, who has won roughly half of the WPBA events she has entered over thirteen full seasons played. I saw both play very often in their primes, but can only speculate as to how each thought out how to manage their development as players.

OK, put yourself in the shoes of Jean Balukas in the early 1980's. You're the best woman player ever (or at least on a par with the great Ruth McGuiness), winning every women's event in sight. You already have the Brunswick sponsorship deal, the most lucrative available of your time for a woman player. You can continue winning most women's events even if you aren't a practice room devotee, because you're that much better than your contemporaries. You are good enough to compete with, but probably not good enough to finish high in men's events with any regularity, unless you are willing to become a practice room workaholic, and even if you do, your income probably won't grow appreciably. Few presented with a similar situation would make the enormous effort required to bring their game to the next level.

OK, now you are Allison Fisher in the late 1990's. You are the best woman player in the world, bar none, and you have the lucrative Cuetec deal, meaning you have a good income from pool. The financial rewards available to you if you make the enormous sacrifices to bring your game to the higest possible level are fairly modest.

As I've noted, this is pure speculation as to how Jean and Allison approached the management of their games, but what is clear to me is that the two greatest women players ever each reached a point in their games where incremental development would require huge sacrifices and would not be especially remunerative. The top women are armed and dangerous, as they showed in Las Vegas last week, but until the undeniable superstars of women's pool have more financial incentive to raise their games to the highest possible level, I must wonder whether we should expect the top women to reach the level of the most elite men.

That's my slant on it.

 

[pocketspeed]

Christ, do they have any more like that where you're from? Will she make me a sandwich right afterwards too? I'm accustomed to both of us just lying there afterwards like gutted trout.

Back on track, I thought the bit about women being less coordinated than men was interesting. I found a neat google books result:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Cd...-5CKBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2

The key line at the bottom of the page seems to be: "in general women have been shown to be superior to men on tasks involving fine motor coordination" ...but wait, now go into the next page:

"whereas men outperform women on target-directed motor skills"

The study that prompted that statement came from baseball, so that probably means "target-directed" applies to anything where you're aiming, i.e. pool.

i admit i was lazy and didnt read your link, but if youre talking "target-directed motor skills" that must mean throwing to a target or hitting right? so a male who is generally more heavy muscled by nature is going to have these edge in these tasks. what sounds more pool like to you? baseball related activities or "fine motor coordination. so it sounds like by nature women should they wish to hone those skills sufficiently would have the edge.

so apparently catscradle is just wrong. still surprised none of the female azb'ers have chimed in (except for aka trigger) on this misogynistic thread

or they are laughing at us b/c they know they can give us the 5 out playing one handed...

brian

 

[sjm]

This reason is reason enough for me to disagree with your hypothesis that lack of money keeps the women players unmotivated.

I didn't make that hypothesis. I suggested that much, much more effort would have led to only marginally more income for the two most elite women in our sport's history. I spoke nothing of the motivation of any other woman player in history.

 

[CreeDo]

i admit i was lazy and didnt read your link, but if youre talking "target-directed motor skills" that must mean throwing to a target or hitting right? so a male who is generally more heavy muscled by nature is going to have these edge in these tasks. what sounds more pool like to you? baseball related activities or "fine motor coordination. so it sounds like by nature women should they wish to hone those skills sufficiently would have the edge.

so apparently catscradle is just wrong. still surprised none of the female azb'ers have chimed in (except for aka trigger) on this misogynistic thread

or they are laughing at us b/c they know they can give us the 5 out playing one handed...

brian

Someone else kinda implied I was hating on women when I stated they couldn't beat the top men for some reason. You got me wrong buddy. I don't understand why there should be any physical or mental roadblock that should keep any woman from playing this game as well as the top men. I merely observe that for some reason, it hasn't happened yet.

Someone else came up with the coordination thing (first time I heard that particular theory) and another poster said "this needs hard science if you're gonna claim men are more coordinated"... so I googled it and linked because it was the closest I could find to 'hard science'. It was only 5 minutes of research, I'm lazy too. Take a second to read it.

I took 'target-directed motor skills' to generally mean any activity that requires aiming. Doesn't necessarily imply physical strength like hurling something. Could be archery, baseball, and bowling. Could be pool, skee-ball, or pitching quarters. I actually googled the phrase at the time of my post but came up dry, otherwise I would have been able to offer a more informed opinion.

Pool is fine motor skills to be sure, but 'target-directed' sounds right up that alley too.