Amps211

There's a lot wrong with what you have said here. Right now, I'll just focus on your sophistry regarding what's fair and unfair. You give three examples, and they all three boil down to money. The kids who can afford coaches, the baseball teams with unlimited budgets, and countries with nicer training facilities. This all has to do with the amount of money that is available to spend on training or putting a team together. You are correct about that. However, there are no leagues that are specifically instituted to divide players or teams based on socio-economic status. Maybe NCAA Division One and Division Two comes close. But what we definitely have a distinct division in, and at all levels, is division by sex. There is a reason for that. You say that Lia Thomas didn't win every race against the women she competed against. This is true. But she won a lot of them, and she set many records. Think about that - a man holds several records in women's swimming. As far as her not winning every race, I'm not surprised. When she was a he, he was ranked 554th against other men. He was not even a top ranked male swimmer. But when he competes against women, he immediately becomes one of the best ever. That what it means when you set records like this. Your time in that event was the fastest ever. 554th against men, top five at least against women. And you don't care about the women who didn't get to compete because Lia Thomas took their roster spot. She’s not a man. Please don’t call her one. Can we still call her penis a penis? I've just read all of this and it looks like you're the only one who intentionally misgendered Lia. Why? You quoted goose (him being the last poster before you in that quote train), but I don't see him misgendering Lia. He used the pronoun "she." Did you mean to quote someone else? Looks like it was Maverick. Thanks and sorry goose

No My worry is though that a trans woman will come on the scene and dominate a sport. Like become the Tiger Woods or the Michael Jordan of that sport. Will that further or stunt the trans movement that has made great strides recently? It could very obviously happen. The sports world has it's hands full here.

There's a lot wrong with what you have said here. Right now, I'll just focus on your sophistry regarding what's fair and unfair. You give three examples, and they all three boil down to money. The kids who can afford coaches, the baseball teams with unlimited budgets, and countries with nicer training facilities. This all has to do with the amount of money that is available to spend on training or putting a team together. You are correct about that. However, there are no leagues that are specifically instituted to divide players or teams based on socio-economic status. Maybe NCAA Division One and Division Two comes close. But what we definitely have a distinct division in, and at all levels, is division by sex. There is a reason for that. You say that Lia Thomas didn't win every race against the women she competed against. This is true. But she won a lot of them, and she set many records. Think about that - a man holds several records in women's swimming. As far as her not winning every race, I'm not surprised. When she was a he, he was ranked 554th against other men. He was not even a top ranked male swimmer. But when he competes against women, he immediately becomes one of the best ever. That what it means when you set records like this. Your time in that event was the fastest ever. 554th against men, top five at least against women. And you don't care about the women who didn't get to compete because Lia Thomas took their roster spot. She’s not a man. Please don’t call her one. Can we still call her penis a penis? I've just read all of this and it looks like you're the only one who intentionally misgendered Lia. Why?

Good for you, EP. You should be proud. As his dad I can tell you I am very proud of him. He has worked very very hard the last five years. He's going to make a great architect!

I'm still of the mind that it came down to marketing and societal expectations. Namely people didn't expect women to be fans of loud rock music, so they didn't market it to them. OK, but if Rush was marketed in such a way as to appeal to males more than females, that suggests that there is something about Rush that could be marketed in such a way, which then suggests that gender does play a role. Sure, so with Rush that thing is that they were a loud heavy progressive rock band in the 70s, and people tended to expect that men would enjoy those qualities in music more than women. Probably correctly so, generally speaking. That assumption was (and may still be) likely generally true, particularly if you're talking about young men who are awash in testosterone. The "in your face" quality of early Rush and the themes of rebellion against authority certainly hit me in the right spot when I was awash with testosterone. My girlfriend in HS certainly tolerated my love of Rush, but I know she didn't share it. The music was too aggressive for her and she couldn't really relate to the lyrical themes -- she didn't find "herself" in those sorts of Rush songs, whereas I did. Was she an anomalous female? I don't think she was. I think she was very representative of her gender at that age. So you're saying you think it's linked to biology. That testosterone drives men to like more aggressive music and estrogen drives women to like less aggressive music. I'm not going to discount this possibility, but I do think it's still possible (even likely) that societal expectations cause people to decide they don't or do like certain things at a young age not because they naturally feel any way about them, but because they're told they're supposed to feel certain ways about them. Let's assume it's 1976 and you're an advertising exec for Mercury. How would you market Rush to appeal to females? To males? No no I'm seeing your point about the marketing thing not being a great answer. If all I have is the source material and the job to market it to different demographics, I'm going to see different results based on what aspects I highlight. I not really with this advertising reason so much any more. Certainly there are ways where marketing could help try to even things out, but short of placing the same ads in magazines already heavily marketed towards female and male stereotypes (which doesn't really solve the larger problem as much as tries to work around it) there's not a good way to be both unbiased and to get the music to both men and women. The problem is with social expectations. As a guy, I shouldn't be expected not to like Katy Perry, but I am. Girls shouldn't be expected not to like Rush, but they are. These expectations come from peers, friends, parents, and yeah to some extent advertising (though advertising isn't trying to influence people not to like things as much as to like things. You can bet if Barbie could find a way to successfully cross over to the boys' demographic it would). But a lot of those societal expectations are changing, and that's probably part of the reason why many more women could be found at rush shows late in their career than earlier on. More and more people started getting wise to the fact that expectations do not have to be reality, and they started deciding what they liked on more unbiased grounds. Just like usual we can look to This Is Spinal Tap for the answer lol Marty DiBergi: "Let's talk about your music today, uh... one thing that puzzles me, ummm... is the makeup of your audience. It seems to be, uh, predominantly, young boys." David St. Hubbins: "Well, it's a sexual thing, really. Aside from the identifying that the boys do with us, there's also a reaction to the, of the female to our music." Nigel Tufnel: "Yeah, really they're quite fearful. That's my theory. They see us on stage, with tight trousers... We've got, you know -- armadillos in our trousers. I mean, it's really quite frightening -- the size. And, and they, they run screaming."

Thanks All !! I'm 55 and lookin for a senior menu to abuse lol

Why is Huey Lewis sad all the time? Because he always listens to the News !! Hahahahahaha

guess i didn't know about Bowie being so high up on your list i would have guessed another prog rock act there at 5 genesis should be on my list .. i may re-do it

rush kiss the who zz top james taylor LZ queen bad co. foreigner the stones the beatles dream theater kansas muse foo fighters paul mccartney tom petty david wilcox michael jackson styx all just off the top of my head and I'm sure there's a huge miss in there

7 years wow !! Happy Anniversary !

2112

Happy Birthday Gene Simmons !! Geddy Lee is still the top dog on my list of rockers I’d love to sit down and have a beer with, but Mr Simmons is right up there too. Gene turned 71 today! Man these dudes are all getting old !

sounds like a Spinal Tap record review .. "Shit Sandwich" lol Hahaha! I was just talking to a buddy of mine and we were half jokingly talking about starting a Spinal Tap tribute band. Shark Sandwich sounded like a good name to us! I’ll add that I really like GnR, but they got too big too fast. Firing Steven Adler - as necessary as that might’ve been - lost them that perfect greasy touch. As soon as Rose started hiring these technicians - the magic was lost. Already been taken. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaTHtMmPDJo LOL .. I like the Name "The Cucumbers" for a ST tribute band "Nunn-Moreblack and the Covers" "Dust for Vomit"

Gimme Some Money - Spinal Tap