Rob Liberti wrote:
We should at least wait until there is a level playing field until we make such comparisons. At this point, it is too early to just jump to a conclusion based on the current situation. Of course I can't think of any extremely well trained females which are at the level of the extremely well trained males - but I think that might just be because those males started training a long time before any of the females. Until the generation of extremely well trained males with no female counterparts dies off, we just don't have the right information to draw the gender based conclusions being alluded to.
So, Rob.... are you then one of the "nurturists" that believes women would be just like men, particularly in sports, if they'd just been raised like men (the ultimate "playing field")? I don't know if you follow social anthropology and archeology the way I do (it's a hobby), but you need to understand that even in the most liberal colleges of today they're freely admitting that there are gender differences all over the place... something they refused to do in the 70's. Those days are over, Rob. We're just animals with survival strategies that involve having 2 genders with slightly different responsibilities and statistically demonstrable physical traits. I wish it were more exalting than that, but let's work with what we've got and not make it more or less than it is.
Women as not (statistically) as good in everything that men are (statistically) good in; men are not (statistically) as good in everything that women are (statistically) good in. It's a survival strategy that worked, happily, for us all. Let's recognize that and be happy with all that we've got.