"MagillaGorilla" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> Women's professional soccer, on the other hand - like cycling - violated
> this Cardinal rule. They had women wearing the same thing as male
> players: baggy shorts, shin pads, baggy shirts. Perhaps this explains
> why the women's soccer league imploded and disappeared within a few
> years of the infamous Brandy "topless" Chastain goal.
I think women in spandex with all the bright colors look great. Silk and
Spandex seems more suited to women then men, (IMO). The tight fit designed
to allow the body to wick away moisture with Coolmax, also highlights their
features as women, which can be a plus or a minus in the sport, but usually
a plus. It cuts both ways. But what I think hurts women the most is the
helmet rule. While necessary of course, it hides their face, as does
sunglasses, and this in part strips their gender on the bike making them
more clone like. Sometimes you can't even tell the difference between men
and women riding together on bikes, not by the top half anyway. But none of
this bothers me, I much rather women be safe and wear helmets, but I usually
ask them to remove their helmet and glasses for a photo. That's a big part
of what reduces their sex appeal on and off the bike, especially in photos.
>
> The bottom line here, Belynda Carlisle, is if women want to be viewed
> a-sexually and appraised solely based on athletic performance, they
> should race with the men.
Having men and women race together would seem more like a freak show to me,
and of course it's unfair based on the limitations of their sex. The only
sport offhand I can think of where men and women competing together seems
fair is the pairs competition in figure skating. That's because it based on
art and the combined performance, not individual merit. Here strength is the
man's play as he does the lifting and throwing, but speed and stamina are
pretty equal factors in the pairs competition.
Apples and Oranges, but it's true in society that women can be firefighters
if they can pull their weight. Same with Police, and just about any other
job. In Sports it's always been separate, but that's different. In the real
world, men and women work together in white collar jobs to meet the
corporate goal. In sports they are competing against each other specific to
their gender, which applies fairness across the board, and the best man or
woman wins, or their teams. But to throw them both together would produce a
disproportionate amount of men always winning at the top, the women would
become slaves to the men as pack fodder, domos who never get a chance to
shine. But it's far more complicated and unrealistic to throw men and women
into the mix together. You have seem how Tammy Thomas morphed into a male
clone, and I would hate to think women would become even more clone like and
lose their unique sexual appeal getting chewed up in the ranks of men.
Case in point.
I wouldn't want to see women have to compete in the TDF along side the men,
or see them do 21 stages like the men with the same amount of climbing.
That's what the founder of Women's Challenge wanted to do, was to make the
race much harder, add more stages and many thousands of feet of extra
climbing. UCI wouldn't sanction such a race, but for good reason. It simply
too brutal. Killing women is not what I personally want to see in a sport
like cycling. They simply are not cut out to go at it, as long and as hard
and fast as the men.
Nicole Brandli is one of most beautiful, classy women ever to grace a
bicycle. She road the 2003 Grande Boucle. It was the last time that any
stage race was so extremely hard and brutal, and it's not UCI sanctioned,
neither is Toona. There were four big climbs and 17 stages I believe, and
Nicole took second place on the final podium that year. Well, for me
personally, I don't like what I saw. She was inebriated, totally wiped out,
a shell, I couldn't even recognize her. What was a beautiful classy great
rider, one of the best, reduced to something very unbecoming, and not too
healthy I am sure. That's not what I want to see in cycling is women run
into the ground or stoop so low to use drugs like Tammy Thomas to win or
finish a long hard tour, or worse yet, use drugs or EPO to keep up with men
racing together.
For me personally, I think women's races should be hard, but not too hard.
I would rather see a winner on the podium who still looks like a women, and
not some clone or run down freak on steroids. Women should be able to win,
and still retain their sex appeal, which makes them different as a specialty
to the sport. It's ok for men to be run into the ground, it's not revolting,
or for them to have extras amounts of everything in their genes which make
them men, and that's not revolting usually, unless they turn into a gorilla
during the tour. But with women, it's not natural to morph, and even
naturally, women morph during a race and take on male traits, and
afterwards, they morph back into their feminin shell. That's why Leontien
wore nail polish and lipstick during races. She was very conscious that she
didn't want to seem manly when she morphed into this incredible machine
during competition.
I think a lot of women also are very conscious of their sexual appeal during
races, and would rather keep women's racing a specialty. Something where
they can perform and compete against each other, (but not against men) and
hold their sexual appeal while obtaining great physical athletic fitness and
achieving remarkable goals, the competition of the human spirit. But to put
women and men together would strip them of what makes them a unique
specialty in cycling, and of course totally unfair since men have
genetically superior attributes. Also women like to double as models off the
bike especially if they have star power like Rochelle Gilmore, and that does
help them in the real world. For many, it's about market value, not about
short term prize money. Winning the World Cup, major classics and stage
races increases their market value, and their sex appeal can really enhance
their potential to earn big money in the real world. The best examples are
Super Mario for the men, and Leontien for the women. They knew how to market
themselves to their full advantage while winning races. So the idea of women
racing with men is not only unfair, but counter productive to their goals in
the real world, which is usually the World Cup and the Olympic Games. There
is a huge incentive and market value to climb the steps of the UCI point
system.
>
> Otherwise, by racing in their own separate category (based solely on
> their sex, mind you) you are really nurturing the sexual disitinctions
> between men and women and then asking us XY chromosomes to ignore the
> very same distinction you are creating by way of a separate league.
But irrelevant to goals women have in life. Most women use sports as a
platform to increase their market value, and racing together with men would
only decrease their market value. Look at all the strides women have made
since the 60's, ERA, women in every area, in the workplace, everywhere. Only
in America, they have better rights then anywhere in the world. Sports is
one of the few areas where women have not be able to dominate, because by
performance, they are genetically less endowed then men. So if women are to
get ahead in cycling per say, it won't be because of speed, strength or
stamina. It will as a specialty, sex appeal, and or course lots of good
press to attract new fans. It's only seems boring because there is no major
money being pumped into the women's side of the sport.
Like Nascar, if some major billionaire like Bill Gates starts pumping
billions of dollars into the sport with new tours, classics, and lot of PR
and sexy cool network commercials, it would sell, and probably sell pretty
well in time. It's a matter of perception too, not just speed, stamina and
endurance. If done right, women's cycling could be every bit as entertaining
and exciting as the mens, if it is produced correctly. It's all an art form
too from cameramen taking photos, gifted video cameramen in the field during
races like the Italians do, they are very good at it, and cool profiles,
interviews and such. With this new generation of what they call Crack TV, it
wouldn't be hard to attract new fans if they really crank it up. That's not
a problem, money is the problem, and lots of it.
Money and money alone is the single biggest factor in giving women's cycling
a huge shot in the arm. Women's cycling isn't taken seriously because it has
never had a chance to be taken seriously on the size and scale I just
mentioned, but if some rich guy like Gates stepped in and did exactly that,
in time it would be taken very seriously. It's also a matter of
conditioning. We have always been conditioned to enjoy men's sports, because
that is where all the money is, and that's what we are used to. True men are
stronger, faster, have more stamina, but those issues melt away in time, if
women can be accepted based on the genes they are given in life. Speed is
only relative, and not a sole factor by any stretch of the imagination when
I watch races. It's about tactics, team play and so many other things, but
my point is about conditioning is that it becomes the world in which you
become accustomed to and enjoy.
Just like the masses who enjoy men's sports, those inside women's cycling
become specialty fans and enjoy women's racing based on their limitations as
well as their advantages, in which of course sex appeal is a big plus for
women's cycling and having them mix it up with men would diminish that part
which nature gave them. But if you are used to watching women's races, it's
not boring, that's your world. It's all a matter of perception, interest, no
matter how big or small a sport might be, but cycling in general is still
pretty small overall compared to Baseball, Football or Basketball, but what
I do like about women's cycling is fairness.
Their is little incentive to cheat or use drugs, and the sport is relatively
clean compared to men's racing. Also the playing field is pretty fair across
the board because no one women has millions of dollars like Lance had to
have Nike, Trek, shave time off races with all their huge innovations, and
also no women has the millions to buy up the best mangers, build the best
team, and recruit the best labs, wind tunnels, etc, etc, ah nasium to
dominate the sport like Lance did. Once you strip away all those advantages,
then women are pretty much equally yoked across the board, and since drug
use is almost nil, it's honorable, admirable, and I admire that they race
for little pay and much hardships all season long. At least that's one of
the big reasons I enjoy it. If their side of the sport ever became
overwhelmed with drug use like the men, I would surely quit following it.
> And the reason why you don't talk about Lance's looks is because the men
> are the fastest and better players athletically in all pro sports. They
> do what they do based on merit. Women, on the other hand, by demanding
> a separate league with inferior athletic performance, have brought upon
> themselves the sexuality issue simply by way of participating in their
> own league that is based solely on their sex.
Well of course, men don't have to worry, since they are the biggest and
strongest. You can argue why women are in sports at all, instead of
homemakers, or relegated to just raise children. In many countries women's
cycling is non existent. But not to worry, I doubt women will ever be a
major threat to men in sports, but that's alright. I don't have a problem
with women being a specialty sport. I don't agree its based solely on their
sex, anymore you can argue men's side is based solely on their sex. It's a
bit more complicated then that, but men wouldn't want women racing with them
in the pro tours, neither would the women want to race with the men. It's a
mute point, no need, we already know men are faster, stronger. The point is
to allow women to race on a fair playing field, and by default, that would
be their own sex, but there is also a community or society within women's
ranks you would have to understand, a certain camradery which women have,
and it's a bit different social enviornment then men. Women have their own
gossip circles within the ranks, and their pals and the way they interact is
different from the men, mixing the two just wouldn't work. They are just too
different, it's more complicated then just playing the sexual card as the
sole basic about why women have their own leagues. Women have their needs as
well, and women wouldn't feel comfortable around too many men when nature
calls.
>
>
> Professor Magilla
>
> P.S. There really is no "men's league" per se in pro sports. Women are
> allowed to race bikes with men..women are allowed to try out for the NFL
> or NBA or MLB..they just choose not to (or cannot make the team on
> merit). Whereas the women's league actually exclude men.
They can and do, many women race with men in smaller races to gain an edge
competing with men to do better in their own women's races, it's nothing
new, I think Sarah Url does that, some do, but not of course in the pro
sanctioned races. But I also know pro women have told me they would rather
not do that, because they become targets getting bumped and chewed up by the
men. Pro women have raced with inexperienced pro men in cat 4 and 5, and
become the target of abuse by aggressive young men who want to show them up
and end up taking them down with their in-experience. That's the trade off,
sitting duck. Women racing with men today would be a disaster for women. I
will always like it separately as a specialty sport.
That's my two cents. Hold the flames, pass the salt.
GBMT
