That men are generally superior to women at sports. Even though you said this wasn't true I wasn't convinced you believed yourself and didn't take you seriously. That's because your exception itself (marathons) was just an instance where the gap is smaller. The gap you acknowledged is what I regard as a trivial truth.

Did you just vaguely look up "marathon records" or something? Those numbers don't say much, and are not detailed research. — Wosret

They're not, but the context is elite male/female athletes, not an average across all marathon participants, and I have run and watched enough track & field to know the gap between males and females.

Do you think it completely irrelevant that the gap between men's mile record and female's is close to the same for the marathon per mile? Do you think that elite male milers don't get within a few seconds of that mile record? Because they do. It's not a total statistical outlier.

Yes, I said that it isn't true, because it isn't very informative. It's a vague comparison. Like saying that being rich makes you "generally better" than poor people. It just sounds like a value judgment when put that way, rather than anything based in reality.

Do you have contradictory research to offer, or only anecdotes?

We can compare the top 700 male marathon runner times to female.

Want to make a bet on it?

Okay deal, but if we're shifting back and forth so rapidly between the general and highly particular to make this point, then I pick marathon swimming.

You may be right about the general, and I don't know about marathon swimming. Perhaps women have an advantage there.

The context was McEnroe's statement, and Serena is elite.

My original post responded directly to the context of the OP. I didn't suggest that women competed with men generally or particularly in all sports, but rather conceded that entirely, gave my opinion of the subtext of it, and then wished to explain why men excel in some areas, and women in others.

You'll probably employ a certain number of assholes though — Mongrel

I'd like to volunteer my services for the position of asshole along with Hanover, SIR and Baaaannnooo!

nd then wished to explain why men excel in some areas, and women in others. — Wosret

Fair enough. And Serena is still better than 99.99...% of human beings who have ever picked up a tennis racket, male or female.

Women are inferior to men at sports.

Is it OK to say that? — Roke

Of course it's okay to say, not true but okay for you to say. However it is just as "okay" for someone else to make a HUGE generalization about something you are or are not.
What is said is neutral, how we choose to allow ourselves to react is another story.

I didn't mean that Wosret would intentionally employ assholes if he was the Emperor of All.

The men's marathon record is 2:02:57. The women's records is 2:17:01.

Historically women didn't compete much in sports, it was not until the 20th Century that they competed in any numbers, and really only in the last half of the last Century they really became involved in sports to the extent that men were involved. I don't think men or women are physically that much different, but the culture of physical training has changed them dramatically. The Men's Olympic Marathon winner in posted a time of 2.29 in 1950.

John McEnroe might actual be able to beat Serena Williams currently:

I didn't get into that, because I didn't want to sound to conspiracy'ie, but you've inspired some references. I remember that Canada killed in the female aspects of the olympics, and they said that it was just because we spend more money on it. I saw some female soccer players complaining that they're made to play on turf, rather than real grass, when they'd never make male players do that.

This springs full circle to my original* (though also opinion, lol) post as well, the subtext is that women are not as great of a spectacle, so lets not give them our attention. It's a competition of divisions, which becomes self-fulfilling for as long as it is maintained.

Woman actually had to fight to be able to run in marathons. Not until 1972 in Boston Marathon and 1984 in the Olympics.

I believe that my rationale holds strong for why women are better at marathons, and, not to sounds paranoid, as it isn't something that is easy to prove, but I suspect that they're still structured in such a way to accommodate males, rather than females.

Well they have a lower center of gravity which means gives them better balance. I've been told by rock climbers that it is only a matter of time before women overtake them and I would certain rather watch a woman skater or gymnast or volleyball player...over a man doing these things.

As I like to tell everyone, golf and women's volleyball are the only real spectator sports.

I never understood this fantasy of women and men taking pictures naked. What does their nakedness have to do with the public arena? Like nothing? :s

You've been to Rome?

You've been to Rome? — Cavacava

Yeah, if they produced sculptures of the ideal human body, I wouldn't mind. They're not doing that, they're taking pictures of actual people, for no reason as far as I can see. I certainly don't want to see Serena or any other person naked pretty much, because why would I? I do like contemplating and looking at the ideal body, both male and female, but that's different than this. It requires art to be able to do that.

Of course it's okay to say, not true but okay for you to say. — Tiff

Insofar as generalizations are truth-apt, the claim that men are generally superior to women at sports is true. If there were a sports competition (sport to be randomly selected) between a men's team and a women's team (participants randomly selected from each population), the Vegas odds would greatly favor the men's team. People tend to be pretty honest when their money is on the line.

But I don't care that men are generally better at sports than women. It's trivially true and uninteresting. Just like everyone else, I know to tiptoe around this sort of thing as a matter of social pragmatics and I don't plan to belabor the point much longer. I just find it interesting how people respond to this sort of claim with a special arsenal of sophistry and double speak. That's the part I'm interested in. Is it because they don't regard it as a trivial? Is it that they're actually responding to something other than the claim, like the perceived motive of the claim?

Williams photo was done by Annie Leibovitz, a very well known and well regarded photo artist.

You're not making points. You've made an assertion that you don't feel needs supporting, or arguing for, and then insinuated that you're oh so victimized for it, and everyone is all wicked for disagreeing, and while not making actual points, and speculating on motivations for disagreeing with the all so obvious, you decide that it is actually everyone that disagrees that only sees motives for disagreeing, and only responds to motives when that is literally 100% of all you've done here.

Am I victimizing you now? I do get that unbelievably frequently...

Williams photo was done by Annie Leibovitz, a very well known and well regarded photo artist. — Cavacava

That doesn't make it art. For that matter, I think most modern "art" isn't really art to begin with. Just because someone is well regarded doesn't also mean that they're good. All that it means is that they have a good reputation. Typically, a lot of those people aren't even that good. But it's all the "social proof" that they built up which enables them to charge high prices and do work that others barely making ends meet could do just as well.

I don't feel victimized at all. Don't get worked up. You're right that I don't think the assertion requires much argument to support it - it's plainly obvious to both athletes and spectators. You agreed with it yourself by acknowledging "the gap" and providing an exception where the gap was smaller than usual. Would have been a really strange argument on your part if it were most any other topic, which again is my point.

Lots of evaluations, not any actual points. I will victimize you now. I thought you were a woman at first, but I see now that you've just been feminized through homoromaticism. What do I keep saying about irony? That's to return an evaluation, rather than a real point.

I did agree with the gap, but based on important qualifications, and with skepticism, with real significant points of real factors that I think are difficult to deny may instantiate some disadvantages -- but even without that, my endurance vs body weight suggestion I believe holds strong in all sports.

Williams photo was done by Annie Leibovitz, a very well known and well regarded photo artist. — Cavacava

That's an understatement.

The photograph of Serena on the cover of Vanity Fair has an almost identical composition to the photo of a 7-month pregnant Demi Moore that appeared on the cover of the August 1991 issue. The 1991 photo was also taken by Leibovitz. Is Vanity Fair making some kind of statement by this?

I still don't feel victimized. Not sure why you want me to be/feel victimized.

What about the hypothetical I gave. What if you had to bet on it? You'd bet on the men's team right?

I told you that it depends, and it's based on the structure of how things are put together based on attention given and money spent (in my opinion), and also that men beat women in explosive power, but not endurance. All of this means that I'm in no way denying that men's teams would generally beat women's. What have I said that makes you think I'm denying this? What kind of point do you think you're making in having me concede this? Be direct, and stop with the insinuations.

What did you mean that you can't say somethings other than people will not like it and disagree with you? What did that mean other than that you'd be victimized? You just don't want to say that you are because I'm telling you that you are. So sassy.