So, I am currently obsessing over the Olympics. All I want to think about, all that matters. Autism? Maybe, too soon to tell. As a feminist, I love watching Simone Biles and Katie Ledecky kick butt, and the latter's ability to rival men is pretty cool, too.
Then, some poor chap made the unfortunate mistake of declaring that Ledecky "swims like a man". Obviously an intended compliment, and I thought nothing of it upon reading it.
Other women had other reactions. It is sexist, according to some, to insinuate that there is a "man's" way and a "woman's" way to swim, and that Ledecky is swimming like a girl. Because she is a girl, see.
First of all, let me again state that I am a feminist, but I think there has been some unfortunate anti-intellectualism in the feminist community lately that causes them to reject scientific articles off the bat, not with simple skepticism, but full-on denial, their own convictions based on, more often than not, anecdote. They say that all of the numerous well-accepted studies saying that cisgender boys and girls have different physical capabilities aren't true because some women somewhere have beaten men athletically at times.
Personally, I do believe that men and women are built differently. Sorry, but women are physically meant to carry children. This means higher body fat and lower muscle mass. Women also are often much shorter than men, which makes for slower running times and swimming times.
That being said, I am skeptical of the idea that men are better athletes than women, hands down. All the sports we know today have been designed when it was the male player that they had in mind, (even softball mimics baseball.) Female physical capabilities, (agility, flexibility, balance), are useful in sports that are exclusively female.
Simone Biles is an athlete, and some argue that she is the best in the world at what she does. Katie Ledecky can hold her own with men, but I doubt she'd beat Michael Phelps, (though if any woman can, it's her.) But Simone Biles is possibly the best in the world at her skills, and she's not only "good for a girl".
Why do we act like something that is mainly geared towards women is inherently worse? How is excelling at girl's gymnastics worse than excelling at speed swimming? Both sports favor a certain gender. One is swamped with the opposite, still, which is fine, while men are barred from Simone Biles level stuff. But would many men want to do what she does? I wonder if men would even see it as glamorous and prestigious, or just a "girl's sport".
Let me go over women's physical capabilities again. They excel at fine motor skills, balance, and flexibility. They have greater range of motion. They are lighter and more agile. Unfortunately, a great physical strength of women, the ability to recover from muscular exhaustion quickly, pacing, and higher fat concentrations making endurance swimming easier, would not make very watchable sports: they would be very long games. Unless we can work around that. But nonetheless, women have capabilities that men do not, on average, have as much.
So, imagine a world full of sports, common sports, Olympic sports, that utilized balance and dexterity, range of motion and muscular recovery. These would be sports in which women were not the best women, but simply the best. That would be awesome!
Finally, I'm not saying cut women's track, volleyball, swimming, etc. I'm saying, focus on trying to get those women the best that they can be, but focus more on utilizing the strengths women excel at, instead of trying to make them like men. And don't act like it's the goal for a woman doing track to outrun Usain Bolt.
(If anyone has any ideas, especially when it comes to making endurance sports interesting, be my guest.)
14 Aug 2016, 11:05 am
