Woman-hating internet garbage fire Return of Kings is celebrating the start of the Olympics by lamenting the fact that most of the athletes the US is sending to the games are women.
As regular RoK contributor John Carver figures it, using his very own system of mathematics,
this is actually a sad state of affairs. It means that the U.S. Olympic team will have less than a 50% chance of seeing a real champion, rather than a 2nd rate gold medalist from the weaker sex … .
According to Carver, women just plain suck at sports compared to men, but as I didn’t bother to read that portion of his post I can’t tell you why. Possibly cooties.
In any case, Carver feels that since women athletes will never be as good as men, any gold medals they win don’t really count. And so they shouldn’t be made of real gold.
Whenever female athletes are awarded a “gold medal” at the Olympics, it should just be a giant knockoff of that cheap Hanukkah gelt (chocolate gold coins) that Jewish children get for the holiday season. After the brief surge of excitement that they have won “gold” (and attention whore themselves with it on Instagram), they can peel off the tin foil and feast on the chocolatey goodness inside until it’s all gone. “You go girl!” ?
You can tell it’s funny because of the smiley and the always-fresh use of the phrase “you go girl!”
After all, since women are ultimately just big children, they merely deserve to have big children’s candy. The REAL gold medals should be allocated to the real champions of a sporting discipline’s top tier, which will always be men.
Comedy GOLD!
@mrex
Surely not your intention, but modifying ‘blue’ with a positive while leaving ‘dark’ unmodified… That ain’t right. I’ve seen Separate but Equal 😀
(Really great movie, BTW. It’s got Poitier in it!)
@kupo
Here, here!
@Smithshadow
Your clever satire used the chilling tone of the original men’s rights manifesto to question who the oppressor is — feminists (and women in general) or the men’s rights movement.
Also instructive was how men’s rights activists get their message across. Feminists favor education and engagement. Men’s rights activists favor screaming at and threatening women on social media.
Note that species aren’t well defined for animals, since the test of whether 2 individuals can produce fertile offspring is actually surprisingly hit and miss. You can have A who can interbreed with B who can interbreed with C, but A and C would not be able to do that. You can have populations who will never ever mate with each other, but not because of genetic difference, only because of behaviors. You can have trouble characterizing social insects and their sterile drones. And, of course, you can’t test that at all with extinguished species.
Also, it’s very rare to actively try to interbreed two individuals to find whether they are the same or different specie. It happen, but almost only when we already determined that clearly thoses two entity were very close.
Lastly, about the english vs irish thing : remember a lot of the difference is actually cultural and learned. The remaining part is a bit about actual phenotype difference, but the average difference between two irish is bigger than the difference between the average englishman and the average irish.
(if it’s not clear, let’s take the number between 0 and 100 and the number between 5 and 105. The average difference between two number of the first set is about 50 or so, while the difference between the average of each set is about 5. Humans work mostly like that, each country have an astonishing amount of genetic diversity, but the difference between each country isn’t very great actually)
Hello, I am mostly a lurker here, but the subject of multi-racial folk came up, and I wanted to say my two cents, because I am multi-racial myself.
It probably doesn’t need to be addressed, but the term ‘breed’ is awful, because, as someone mentioned above, that would imply the selective breeding of domesticated animals, which is (thankfully, *shudder*) inaccurate and also implies a comparison to such creatures. Not to mention the fact that many of us, including myself, have been called mutts, half-breeds, mixed-breeds, and the like. Not exactly complimentary terms, even to dog-lovers.
As to the emphasis of race over ethnicity, they are different, although neither should matter. I think the issue is that there’s usually a simplification of the two, at least, from my experience, and if a body resembles one racial category in a person’s mind, they’re sorted into that box because it’s easier than learning multiple ethnicities or being able to distinguish them from different races which may conflict with what people think they should be. And people *really* like to sort us, it seems. (“What are you?” is a very popular question amongst people that are generally well meaning and honestly curious, even if the question isn’t one that should need to be asked of anyone.)
When you’re of multiple races and ethnicities, people don’t see you as being fully part of all of these things. They see you as a pie being cut up in each and every way. You’re *part* this and *part* that and you are often forgotten, ignored, and disincluded because you’re too much of one thing and not enough of another, or just plain shouldn’t exist.
I’m proud to use the term ‘mixed-race’ to describe myself. I’m not the one putting the emphasis on race. Other people did that to me. Using the term mixed to describe myself is simply reminding a world that really hates shades of grey that I actually exist, and my reality is valid and just as important as everyone else’s.
tl;dr, Because of the racial emphasis and colorism from the society I live in, race is a much more recognized subject than ethnicity and people like to ignore anyone of multiple backgrounds that don’t fit cleanly into their narrative.
Sorry for the slight ramble. I hope that was slightly coherent. :/ And not too off subject.
Oh, and before I forget, the women in the Olympics are all amazing, hard-working people, and it’s such an awesome treat to see people like Simon Biles and Laurie Hernandez (first Latina since 2004!) showcase their efforts to the world and inspire the next generation. No amount of RoK jealousy and vulgarity could destroy how wonderful it is to be able to sit with my nieces and see people that look like us represent our country.
Although the Olympics are reminding me that I haven’t hit the gym in awhile. These people are so able at such a young age, they make being twenty feel old. 😛
@ axe
Try telling someone from The Falls Road, Belfast and Shankhill Road, Belfast they’re the same.
Carver could SO earn a gold metal on the pure power of brawny MANHOOD.
Oh wait, no he can’t. Because he isn’t a professional athlete and probably wouldn’t work hard enough to become one.
That means these women are better athletes than he is despite being feeeemale. I bet he’s just angry about that.
Is it true most US athletes are women this Olympics? That’s cool!
I bet he would be just fine if the women’s events weren’t televised, kind of like how women’s sports is often not broadcasted, or given equal media attention and francisement.
@Rugbyyogi
Was moving a very heavy thing with an old schoolfriend who plays rugby and only she and her husband (also a rugby player) could shift it independently; my boyfriend, brother and I had so much trouble with it. It was enviable. I can’t abide people putting others down for being competent. I think it happens more to women because it is easier and ‘neater’ to be able to think of yourself as superior to massive swathes of people by default, anything that challenges that is ‘boo-hoo’ o’ clock
@BVH (and everyone who followed up on this)
I think stuff like that might be cultural stereotypes because I really can’t think of anyone I know (English or Irish) who would argue against that. I suppose it would depend on context (i.e. conflating the accents ‘Its all British’ would raise eyebrows but that happens with localities where there are subtle differences in accent which are only really distinct to locals). Also, it seems to me that those types of arguments don’t have anywhere near the grossness of arguments regarding ethnicity (or religion); they always seem to have a much more horrible rhetoric. Mind you, England has seen some horrible attitudes towards Polish people (in particular)emerge in the last few years (similar to what Irish people suffered here 20-30 years ago). Now I’m miserable about the state of the world and wonder if that entire section was wrong; maybe I’m part of a tiny anomaly and the default is much worse than I imagine
I watched a very interesting documentary last night, Reggie Yate’s Extreme Russia, I think it’s still available on BBC iplayer if you want to see it. It’s about the rise in White Supremecy and Nationalism in Russia. There is a scene when Reggie tells the leader of the Nazi group that he had a white grandfather, and the Nazi guy goes on about mixing colours and cross breeding mongrels with Dobermann dogs, and concludes that Reg is a mongrel. He goes on to say that it causes genetic freaks, which of course, the opposite is true. They know nothing about genetics. It’s inbreeding which causes genetic defects. (Like the Habsberg jaw, haemophilia etc)
What was really sad about this show was seeing how far Russia has degenerated. The USSR crushed Hitler, it seems that WW2 was fought for nothing. Most of these ‘immigrants’ the Nationalists are railing against were once citizens of the USSR, just like they were. They are turning against their own people, now we see them exploited for cheap labour and attacked in the street by knife gangs. The Soviet Union was far from perfect, but it was better than this bourgeois capitalist sham of a Russia controlled by the oligarchy that they have now.
Then again, soviet russia was soviet in name only, and during WW2 it already was a brutal dictatorship with quite a bit of racist and classist witch hunt, just one a little bit less abhorrent than the Nazis.
And history have made it so that germans more or less successfully have gone past that stage, but the russian did not. My cynical view is that without at least a decent amount of prosperity a nation have a lot of trouble not being an hateful dictatorship.
So this is what kids who don’t get chocolate coins at Christmas grow up into.
@ohlmann
Yes of course. Stalin was a despot, by then they had moved so far away from the communist ideology it was ridiculous. True communism ended with the death of Lenin and expulsion of Trotsky, had Trotsky ascended rather than Stalin, we would have seen a different outcome. State capitalism as practiced now in China was considered the second stage to be superseded by true communism, but that unfortunately never happened. However, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, these small countries, once under the flag of the USSR, have regressed into poverty, crime and illiteracy, and their citizens are no longer welcome in the Russian Federation, being classed as cheap labour and unwelcome immigrants, fearing for their lives very often because of the rise in fascism.
It is true, men are the superior species. I have no interest watching a bunch of females playing volleyball or gymnastics. There are inherent natural reasons why men have always ruled the world… and why we do EVERYTHING better – starting with bigger and stronger. Every building you see was built by men; every champion and every record set will always be better than what women can do. You don’t like it? Too bad… nobody cares about the WNBA or womens’ hockey… people want to see the NHL, NBA, MLB, etc.,
Women can do great things… but sports… it’s not the same. Period.
James : a good example of Poe’s law.
If we suppose he is sincere and not a satire, what he say is bullshit and he think his opinion hold true for everyone. Turn out it’s wrong. Women put mankind on the moon after all.
I would note two things.
1. The medalists in the women’s 48 kg weight lifting in Rio clean and jerked twice their bodyweight. I wonder if Carver could lift anything more than his raging erection?
2. I coach a women’s rugby team. I’ve seen my players mix it with opponents much bigger, faster and skilled than themselves. Three players from my team were called up to the national side last season. Again, Mr Carver, apart from trolling from your mother’s basement, lamenting the fact you can’t get laid by posting vicious falsehoods online and generally being a pimple on the arse of society, what achievements of note do you have to crow about?
Edit: This yawn is directed at James.
That fox is lovely. Does fox works as pet ?
I can disprove James’ assertion that no one cares about women’s sports. I care! Sorry, James. You fail.
How very odd, James, that your superior manbrain has not helped you to understand what a species is.
Your particular viewing habits aren’t relevant to a discussion of the relative capabilities of men and women.
You have not supported your assertion that men have always ruled the world.
This assertion also requires support.
You cannot “do” bigger and stronger “better.” Those are descriptors, not activities.
Easily shown to be false by the existence of women employed in construction, civic engineering, and the many, many other jobs required to accomplish something as monumental as erecting a building.
I would say this assertion requires evidence, but in fact there is no evidence that could possibly prove your prediction, unless you’re able to travel through time.
I mean, not really. I don’t like it, so I’m tearing your argument to shreds.
Patently untrue.
Some people do, yes. But again, that’s irrelevant to the question of men’s and women’s relative capabilities.
This is a vague mess, but I love that you had the audacity to end your screed of unsupported assertions and outright lies with something as definitive as “Period.”
And yet women athletes (and even some non-athletic women) will always be more powerful and capable on the spectrum than the average joe. I think the men who adhere most strongly to this notion are the ones whose only chance at claiming achievement is to do so vicariously, as if having the same genitalia in common through the statistical equivalent of a coin toss somehow puts them in the same category. Nah.
http://www.winterson.com/pics2/botw45.jpg
@James, hello! Welcome to the site. There is a welcome basket if you are interested in some scented candles and hard seated chairs.
I noticed that you are struggling with some basic scientific concepts in your post! I’d like to help, if that’s alright. They are little things, but important for the budding scientist to keep in mind.
The first thing to do is to avoid universals. If it’s got an upside-down A in the math, you should probably avoid mentioning it, because it’s almost certainly wrong! You want the backwards E. Proving a universal is much, much harder than proving an existential. In example, you wrote
This should actually read “It is true that there exists a man who is superior to a woman.” You use an existential in your next line,
I’ll point out though that it’s improper to use the first person in this sort of situation. Your line should probably be corrected to read “There exists a man who is not interested in watching a bunch of women playing volleyball or gymnastics.”
The second thing to keep in mind is that you need to provide support for controversial statements. Typically this is done in the APA or MLA style, but as long as you’ve got a reference of some sort then you’re fine. At best, without these your submission will be ignored or ridiculed. At worst, you will be accused of plagiarism or fabrication. To point out an example contentious line,
We’ll ignore the erroneous universals in this line and just look at the positive statements, that men a) rule the world, and b) are better (than women). You should probably break this into two parts, so as to avoid confounding the two statements, but even so, you need to supply your references! Here’s your statement, corrected:
Be sure that you have a properly formatted reference section at the end of your paper as well. An example from above would be,
Rectum, B. “Men are Better: Girls Have Cooties And Are Stinky”. Assfax Press, 2016
Third thing to keep in mind is that you are writing for an audience. What you write reflects on yourself, your professionalism, your public standing, and the standing of your organization. Get a copy of the APA style guide and follow it! Avoid colloquial formations such as ellipses within sentences, comma splices, first person references and sentence fragments. These make you look amateurish and, more importantly, they weaken your point. For example, you wrote:
I passed this to my editor, and got back a much more succinct, clear and formal version:
See? If you don’t have an editor, pass your work off to a respected friend first and get an honest opinion. Correct for grammar, style and content. And don’t be afraid to cut out parts! The part starting with “It is true…” and ending with “… not the same. Period.” could be trimmed without losing meaning, for example. Be concise!
Normally I would have to fail you for this submission, but go ahead and try again, James. It’s normal to have to give it a couple tries before you get it right.
Instafail.
Way to shoot your own theory in the feet, the gut, and through both heart and head.
A clue. You don’ts has it.
Scildfreja, I absolutely adore you.
‘Rectum, B. “Men are Better: Girls Have Cooties And Are Stinky”. Assfax Press, 2016’
OMG I am going to be citing that publication forevs!
Thanks Scildfreja – you have enabled me to reach full laughter quotient for today and it is only 6pm.