Jump to content

Amps211

Members
  • Posts

    305
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Amps211

  1. No, they shouldn't have to compete in their own leagues, not least because the small numbers would make it impractical.

     

    As perspective, let's remember that Lia Thomas has set records, but she's also not dominant the way some recent swimmers have been: I read she finished fifth and eighth in her other events, and that's hardly crushing the opposition.

     

    For further scale, Utah just passed one of these "protect girls' sports" bills to impact the 75,000 high schools athletes in Utah, ONE of whom is a transgender female now competing as female. I'll eat my head if even five percent of the people who agitated for this bill could tell you who won the girls' cross country state title last year. And I'll bet you a dime they were not terribly interested in the US Women's National Soccer team's lawsuit for equal pay.

     

    As for unfair advantage, this exists in sports _all the time_ and we learn to live with it. Rich kids can afford coaches, poor kids can't. The Dodgers get to sign Freddie Freeman, the Royals/Mariners/A's don't. The USA has all-weather training facilities with dieticians, counselors, tutors, physical therapists, state-of-art equipment and computer monitoring, Uganda (for example) does not.

     

    If someone's life is "ruined" because she finished second instead of first in a race in high school or college, that suggests rather an outsize importance. Is a person's life really gonna peak at 22? Is that poor woman going to wind up living in a van down by the river because her 10,000 hours of practice didn't result in first? Most people's efforts don't result in first; that's life.

     

    As for the transgendered "switching back," this is a question grounded in (deliberate?) misunderstanding of what gender dysmorphia is. Is there even a statistically significant record of this happening? Let's not get carried away on the slippery slope.

     

    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

    • Like 1
  2. No, they shouldn't have to compete in their own leagues, not least because the small numbers would make it impractical.

     

    As perspective, let's remember that Lia Thomas has set records, but she's also not dominant the way some recent swimmers have been: I read she finished fifth and eighth in her other events, and that's hardly crushing the opposition.

     

    For further scale, Utah just passed one of these "protect girls' sports" bills to impact the 75,000 high schools athletes in Utah, ONE of whom is a transgender female now competing as female. I'll eat my head if even five percent of the people who agitated for this bill could tell you who won the girls' cross country state title last year. And I'll bet you a dime they were not terribly interested in the US Women's National Soccer team's lawsuit for equal pay.

     

    As for unfair advantage, this exists in sports _all the time_ and we learn to live with it. Rich kids can afford coaches, poor kids can't. The Dodgers get to sign Freddie Freeman, the Royals/Mariners/A's don't. The USA has all-weather training facilities with dieticians, counselors, tutors, physical therapists, state-of-art equipment and computer monitoring, Uganda (for example) does not.

     

    If someone's life is "ruined" because she finished second instead of first in a race in high school or college, that suggests rather an outsize importance. Is a person's life really gonna peak at 22? Is that poor woman going to wind up living in a van down by the river because her 10,000 hours of practice didn't result in first? Most people's efforts don't result in first; that's life.

     

    As for the transgendered "switching back," this is a question grounded in (deliberate?) misunderstanding of what gender dysmorphia is. Is there even a statistically significant record of this happening? Let's not get carried away on the slippery slope.

     

    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?

  3. Yesterday and today, split into two different ceremonies, I graduated from the University of Notre Dame. After five years of studying architecture, I'm now a third of the way to licensure, older, smarter, (hopefully) wiser, and proud to have made a number of lifelong friends along the way. It's been a fantastic weekend so far. :)

    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!

    • Like 7
  4. At the risk of being reductive, do we agree that the premise of the question is correct?

     

    Are there fewer female fans?

     

    The lines to the restrooms at concerts would say so; the active membership of this website suggests it.

     

    Those are anecdotal, but if there are fewer female Rush fans, I don't see how it would be possible to answer the question of why without resorting to some gendered essentialism and large-scale claims that any critic could puncture with specific counter-examples.

     

    Are there/have there been social pressures that kept females from music like Rush's? Surely something like musical taste is not gender-based. What would those pressures have been?

     

    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."

    • Like 2
  5. Well seeing as no one is sticking to the number, here's my top five, which has been my top five for some years now.

     

    Queen

    Rush

    Muse

    Genesis

    David Bowie

     

    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

    • Like 1
  6. Awful. The band of Appetite for Destruction was no more.

     

    November Rain is a bloated mess with really bad singing.

     

    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"

  7. Awful. The band of Appetite for Destruction was no more.

     

    November Rain is a bloated mess with really bad singing.

     

    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 hahahaha .. "they run screaming!"

    • Like 2
  8. I voted

    - VDGG

    - Supertramp album

    - ELP Christmas monstrosity.

     

    This could be an awkward poll as i get the impression that Prog is not that popular with many TRF members.

    I however think it's great and is reminding me of some real Prog clunkers!!

     

    I don't think prog is really unpopular, it's just generally second fiddle to classic rock. There are some around here who don't like it at all, but I think most people at least like Yes and Pink Floyd quite a bit.

     

    Pink Floyd is NOT prog! lol

     

    Yes they are, Dad!

     

    Just thought of a good comparison at lunch EP .. Pink Floyd is to prog what Green Day is to punk .. thoughts?

  9. I voted

    - VDGG

    - Supertramp album

    - ELP Christmas monstrosity.

     

    This could be an awkward poll as i get the impression that Prog is not that popular with many TRF members.

    I however think it's great and is reminding me of some real Prog clunkers!!

     

    I don't think prog is really unpopular, it's just generally second fiddle to classic rock. There are some around here who don't like it at all, but I think most people at least like Yes and Pink Floyd quite a bit.

     

    Pink Floyd is NOT prog! lol

    go home, you're drunk

    :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :zzz:

    I was talking to the guy who said Pink Floyd wasn't prog

     

    I was just having fun with EP (I do enjoy beer tho .. cheers!)

     

    but truthfully they have never struck me as prog

     

    they seem a bit too mellow-ish on the well known tunes (that's about all I know)

     

    at least as far as someone with a cursory understanding of what prog means, they seem to be on the fringes of it

    Hehe ... we were only messin' !!! I think to be honest the term Prog nowadays is all encompassing, and covers a lot of different styles from the total chill-out mellow like some of Floyd, Camel or Renaissance to complete heavyness like Haken, Dream Theater or Anekdoten. Anyway, lets drink on it! :cheers: Cheers!!

     

     

    My thing with Pink Floyd is they are so huge with just casual rock fans, who I know wouldn't get thru a few minutes of Suppers Ready or 2112

     

    I think my mind goes to that thought when I hear them mentioned along side of bands like Rush and Genesis

     

    seem to be more bluesy and less jazzy

     

    Prog covers a lot of ground tho .. you are correct

     

    Cheers!!

    • Like 1
  10. I voted

    - VDGG

    - Supertramp album

    - ELP Christmas monstrosity.

     

    This could be an awkward poll as i get the impression that Prog is not that popular with many TRF members.

    I however think it's great and is reminding me of some real Prog clunkers!!

     

    I don't think prog is really unpopular, it's just generally second fiddle to classic rock. There are some around here who don't like it at all, but I think most people at least like Yes and Pink Floyd quite a bit.

     

    Pink Floyd is NOT prog! lol

    go home, you're drunk

    :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: :zzz:

    I was talking to the guy who said Pink Floyd wasn't prog

     

    I was just having fun with EP (I do enjoy beer tho .. cheers!)

     

    but truthfully they have never struck me as prog

     

    they seem a bit too mellow-ish on the well known tunes (that's about all I know)

     

    at least as far as someone with a cursory understanding of what prog means, they seem to be on the fringes of it

    • Like 2
  11. I voted

    - VDGG

    - Supertramp album

    - ELP Christmas monstrosity.

     

    This could be an awkward poll as i get the impression that Prog is not that popular with many TRF members.

    I however think it's great and is reminding me of some real Prog clunkers!!

     

    I don't think prog is really unpopular, it's just generally second fiddle to classic rock. There are some around here who don't like it at all, but I think most people at least like Yes and Pink Floyd quite a bit.

     

    Pink Floyd is NOT prog! lol

    • Like 1
  12. I checked out "I Am Not Okay With This" on Netflix, and I'm not okay with it. The episodes were short, so I don't feel like I've wasted a lot of time, but when season two comes out, I'll give it a pass.

     

    Then I tried watching "Fargo" on Hulu, but for a 48-minute episode of TV, there were 30 minutes of commercials. This is an infuriating ratio, and it's why I'd rather watch some other service!

     

    I was OK with I'm Not OK With This .. I really liked the shortness of it .. a very short binge watch for sure ... the way they set up the next season is pretty interesting to me

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...