Post: #1

Did anyone see this terrible ESPN Article?
http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary...guidelines

I guess then paternity tests are sexist as well because we don't do maternity tests.


Excerpt:
"But it is the equivalent of security screening; "random selection" is rarely random, but often just a license to profile. As Mark Leather, the head of performance for the Bolton Wanderers of the English Premier League, told The Guardian: "I've never come across testing being carried out for men. The footballing authorities don't make the men do any."

Stanford University bioethicist Katrina Karkazis also weighs in: "That's a red herring. Historically, these policies have only ever applied to women. And there is no reason to think, given that history, that they exist to apply to men."

That's because they don't apply to men. And why don't they? Probably because if a male athlete tested outside whatever range FIFA deemed as "normal for a man," he wouldn't be seen as having an advantage. Like, in any way. At all.

Think about the subliminal message here: Being a woman -- or even like a woman -- is essentially a disadvantage. And being "like a man" is supposedly so advantageous that FIFA has created a policy to expose any female athlete deemed "too manly."

At its core, this is gender policing of women. And FIFA isn't really trying to hide it. The International Olympic Committee at least changed the language in its policy -- a bit of semantics that, at first glance, makes the IOC seem less discriminatory (spoiler alert: It's not).

The IOC policy now focuses on "female hyperandrogenism" -- an excess of naturally occurring testosterone -- and argues that this gives women an unfair advantage. The policy on FIFA's books doesn't pretend to be anything other than sex testing, and FIFA even says associations should verify gender by "actively investigating any perceived deviation in sex characteristics."

"FIFA is back in the stone age because they're actually saying this is essentially a sex test," says Karkazis, an expert on the IOC's testing policies. "It explicitly says if they conclude that a woman is not the 'gender' she says she is, she'll be referred to the Disciplinary Committee. This means they can tell women who have lived and competed as women their entire lives they're not women. If you refuse to undergo exams or hand over medical records, you'll be suspended. It's sex determination."

Post: #2

First thing that came to mind:







Rodney D. You do have my respect!!!!

Post: #3

Quote:"Think about the subliminal message here: Being a woman -- or even like a woman -- is essentially a disadvantage. And being "like a man" is supposedly so advantageous that FIFA has created a policy to expose any female athlete deemed "too manly."

How is that subliminal? Women compete in their own league precisely because compared to men they suck. It is such a disadvantage that unisex football would have zero professional female players.

Post: #4

They do make sure players on the men's teams are men. It's called a tryout.

Post: #5

(06-15-2015 05:47 PM)sixsix Wrote:  

Quote:"Think about the subliminal message here: Being a woman -- or even like a woman -- is essentially a disadvantage. And being "like a man" is supposedly so advantageous that FIFA has created a policy to expose any female athlete deemed "too manly."

How is that subliminal? Women compete in their own league precisely because compared to men they suck. It is such a disadvantage that unisex football would have zero professional female players.

Imagine Social Justic Sporting Leagues Where everyone gets an equal opportunity to play despite their age, race or gender and everyone gets a participation medal. How fun would that be to watch?

Post: #6

(06-15-2015 03:10 PM)Kane12:00 Wrote:  That's because they don't apply to men. And why don't they? Probably because if a male athlete tested outside whatever range FIFA deemed as "normal for a man," he wouldn't be seen as having an advantage. Like, in any way. At all.

Think about the subliminal message here: Being a woman -- or even like a woman -- is essentially a disadvantage. And being "like a man" is supposedly so advantageous that FIFA has created a policy to expose any female athlete deemed "too manly."

The author of the article in question should watch this video.

Post: #7

I'd like to see women's sports on TV like speed cooking and competitive ironing.

Post: #8

What is this nonsense? Why would FIFA ever take a test to see if a guy is actually a girl? First off, even if a woman somehow managed to masquerade as a man she'd be physically at such an big disadvantage in football that she'd never it into the pro-leagues where such tests matter. Like, it's simply ridiculous and unthinkable to imagine a woman getting into the men's pro-leagues at such a level to need to get tested naturally. And if unnaturally then she'd fail the steroids test anyway

Post: #9

(06-16-2015 01:34 AM)quino_16 Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 03:10 PM)Kane12:00 Wrote:  That's because they don't apply to men. And why don't they? Probably because if a male athlete tested outside whatever range FIFA deemed as "normal for a man," he wouldn't be seen as having an advantage. Like, in any way. At all.

Think about the subliminal message here: Being a woman -- or even like a woman -- is essentially a disadvantage. And being "like a man" is supposedly so advantageous that FIFA has created a policy to expose any female athlete deemed "too manly."

The author of the article in question should watch this video.

Oh my. That's all in one game too. I think the women should play against all the little kids that walk out the men's teams before international games.

Post: #10

(06-16-2015 08:13 AM)realologist Wrote:  Oh my. That's all in one game too. I think the women should play against all the little kids that walk out the men's teams before international games.

That would be a funny sight.

Let's be honest though, men and women are not physically even close to comparable. Anyone who has ever played soccer in a league that is the slightest bit competitive will know exactly what I mean. For example, at my high school, the girls varsity team would always spar against the freshman on the boys JV team for practice. They never won. Even with a 2 - 3 year lead in age and in many cases, size, the freshman boys would always dominate. Handicaps on the boys like having no goalie on net and having to shoot solely outside of the penalty box could do nothing to close the score gap and the freshman boys would still easily defeat the girls varsity team. Every. Time. I have never witnessed an exception to this rule.

Despite the difference, we didn't look down on the girls in any way. I'm sure this fact would puzzle a great many academics. The boys still liked and respected the girls on the team no matter the difference in capability because *SHOCKER* we all knew that men and women aren't physically equal. It wasn't some kind of conspiracy. If it was, I'm sure none of the guys would have been begging to play for the girl's side to show off like they did(mmmm soccer chicks). It was just what it was.

I understand that academics rarely see the sun and more rarely ever get more exercise than an excruciating 200 step slog to the coffee pot and back every morning, but seriously, you have to be willfully ignorant or have some kind of psychosis to not realize the inherent physical differences between the sexes. For them, I'd personally bet on both.

Post: #11

The thing is there ARE female sports out there. Figure skating, gymnastics, ballet... I am sure there are others I am forgetting.

Post: #12

(06-16-2015 07:49 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  I'd like to see women's sports on TV like speed cooking and competitive ironing.

Men would crush women at those too.

Sonsowey is right that the only truly female sports are those that call for elegance and grace.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #13

Hilarious video.

I've tried my hardest to concentrate and last more than 10 minutes watching the women world cup games (and i'm a HARDCORE footie fan! not some casual fan who only watches the WC from the 1/4 finals onwards every 4 years LOL). I just can't. So slow, so devoid of any talent (save a few very rare exceptions like Marta and a couple of others here and there), no fancy moves, no organization.

Most games lack any organization from a tactical view point. Girls just run after the ball, like a bunch of pre teens would at a schools' back yard. You see 5 or 6 girls all converging in the same area running after the ball like a bunch of headless chickens.

Just hilarious and pathetic.

I'd much rather watch the FIFA under 20 men WC! Much more interesting!

Thanks god there's Copa America or it would have been a boring as hell summer footie wise!

(06-16-2015 01:34 AM)quino_16 Wrote:  The author of the article in question should watch this video.

Post: #14

So I presume you think the CONCACAF Gold Cup is on the same level as the Women's World Cup? At least CONCACAF has 3 competent teams.

Post: #15

(06-16-2015 06:12 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  So I presume you think the CONCACAF Gold Cup is on the same level as the Women's World Cup? At least CONCACAF has 3 competent teams.

I'll definitely be watching. I'm rooting for my team Mexico to win it all.

USA is no cakewalk either, and I see Costa Rica competing for it as well.

The Central American teams can pull off a surprise. They always face Mexico tough.

Post: #16

The way thing are going, in ten years time we're all going to need do testing on our potential dates to make sure there are no men in our "league."

In the past year, trans-men have been creeping up more and more in my OKCupid results. God knows what this will look like when Saint Hillary gets elected and it becomes a mortal sin to be an actual male.

Post: #17

(06-16-2015 06:12 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  So I presume you think the CONCACAF Gold Cup is on the same level as the Women's World Cup?

That'd be a crazy thought. The 20th best men's senior side in CONCACAF would dominate any side in the Women's World Cup. I'd put money on Guyana, Curacao, or Antigua and Barbuda over any single team at this current women's world cup. Even Montserrat would probably dominate these teams.

In fact, I'm fairly confident that any of the top 6 teams from the 2015 CONCACAF U-17 Championship would destroy the sides at the Women's World Cup.

Quote:At least CONCACAF has 3 competent teams.

The teams beyond the top 3 in CONCACAF are consistently underrated. There are at least 3 more squads in the confederation that can go out and compete capably with the better nations in the world.

Post: #18

(06-16-2015 06:27 PM)MidWest Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 06:12 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  So I presume you think the CONCACAF Gold Cup is on the same level as the Women's World Cup? At least CONCACAF has 3 competent teams.

I'll definitely be watching. I'm rooting for my team Mexico to win it all.

USA is no cakewalk either, and I see Costa Rica competing for it as well.

The Central American teams can pull off a surprise. They always face Mexico tough.

Jamaica is going to be a dark horse in this tournament. I'm calling it now. Strong chance of at least a semi-final appearance.

Post: #19

(06-16-2015 07:22 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 06:12 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  So I presume you think the CONCACAF Gold Cup is on the same level as the Women's World Cup?

That'd be a crazy thought. The 20th best men's senior side in CONCACAF would dominate any side in the Women's World Cup. I'd put money on Guyana, Curacao, or Antigua and Barbuda over any single team at this current women's world cup. Even Montserrat would probably dominate these teams.

In fact, I'm fairly confident that any of the top 6 teams from the 2015 CONCACAF U-17 Championship would destroy the sides at the Women's World Cup.

Quote:At least CONCACAF has 3 competent teams.

The teams beyond the top 3 in CONCACAF are consistently underrated. There are at least 3 more squads in the confederation that can go out and compete capably with the better nations in the world.

I was being facetious. He said that without Copa America it would be a boring summer. The Gold Cup kicks off next month.

Panama is the team I left out of the top 3. They have a good team. Any one of the 4 could win the competition. Honduras and Guatemala can certainly win in any given game. I just can't see them having that much of an impact over the course of the tournament.

Post: #20

In terms of level of difficulty and quality of football played, here's the ranking of the various continental football tournaments:

European Cup
Copa America
African Cup
Asian Cup
Gold Cup
Oceania Cup

(06-16-2015 06:12 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  So I presume you think the CONCACAF Gold Cup is on the same level as the Women's World Cup? At least CONCACAF has 3 competent teams.

Post: #21

I would say that's fair. CONCACAF is stronger than the AFC at the top, but the bottom of CONCACAF consists of tiny island nations.

Post: #22

(06-16-2015 10:00 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  I would say that's fair. CONCACAF is stronger than the AFC at the top, but the bottom of CONCACAF consists of tiny island nations.

And at the bottom of the AFC are...Singapore? Hong Kong? Bhutan? Laos? Mongolia? Nepal? Sri Lanka? The Maldives?

Somehow those nations don't strike more fear in me than the likes of Bermuda, Grenada, Curacao, or St. Kitts, many of whom actually have a larger number of quality professionals in their player pools than some of their counterparts at the bottom of the AFC. I'd fancy Curacao over Bhutan or Laos just about any day of the week, and you would too if you saw a few of their matches or got a gander at their player pool.

Also, nations like India may be vastly larger than CONCACAF's little islands, but they're abysmal at football. I'll take St. Kitts or Bermuda in a head to head with India any day. Guam managed them handily, and Guam couldn't take most Caribbean sides, as they showed against Aruba a little before this time last year (those Arubans, for the record, just got eliminated by Barbados in the second round of CONCACAF's 2018 World Cup Qualifying cycle).

Besides, the Gold Cup doesn't feature those tiny island nations very often. Only 12 teams qualify, and these are generally the very best nations in CONCACAF. I'll take CONCACAF's top 12 over Asia's top 16.

People need to stop underrating football in North and Central America. You'd figure this last WC cycle would have made that obvious...

Post: #23

(06-16-2015 06:12 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  So I presume you think the CONCACAF Gold Cup is on the same level as the Women's World Cup? At least CONCACAF has 3 competent teams.

My amateur local university team plays better than those international women's teams (referring to the Germany v Norway video).

Post: #24

I think the CONCACAF region is far stronger than both Africa and Asia. Not only are Mexico, Costa Rica, US are better than or about the same level as the best nations of those continents. The strength in depth is much better as well. A lot of the carribean nations will have lower English league players, playing for them. Jamaica are pretty strong. The central american countries have a football culture and are fairly good, Honduras, El Salvador, etc much better than the equivalent weaker Asian and African teams.

Source: I'm half Mexican, I like to follow El Tri and support them when I can, last time was London olympics.

Post: #25

I'm also in agreement regarding some of the CONCACAF teams.

As a whole, it's not a stronger division as opposed to the African and Asian ones.

But currently, the States and Mexico are better than any opponent Africa or Asia has to offer.

It's simply no contest. USA outplayed Ghana in their showdown in at the 2014 tournament. Which team made it out of the group?

And seriously Mexico was far superior to Holland in that R16 game. Had Mexico won that game they would have reached the semi finals.

The same goes for Europe. As a whole, it's a stronger division than that of CONMEBOL. But 2-4 of South American teams, depending on form, are on top of most of Europe at any given time. It's also a no contest.