We’re all adults here, so I’m going to come right out and reveal my misogynistic thesis: men are better athletes than women, in the sense that if you pick any group of men and an equal number of women, such that the way both sexes are picked is identical, more men than women will on average be found to be better, faster, stronger.
Further, at the highest end of performance men will greatly outnumber women, again on average. Although statistics aren’t kept, it’s my guess that men will greatly outnumber women (on average) at the lowest end, too, since many of my sex are natural practitioners of the gentle art of indolence.
The reason for these gross discrepancies is because the biology, as yet uncontrolled by the government, of men and women is different. This is sad for women, of course, but (again, so far) an inescapable fact. Equality is not written in our genes, however much it is in our hearts.
Now, there lurk among us many who agitate for equality between the sexes (still largely just two). Many of these souls are satisfied if they can discover a strict—it must be strict, even though strict is probabilistically unlikely—statistical equality in employment or in other monetary terms.
The battle having largely been won in this arena, the agitators found themselves without a hobby. And so they turned to sports, where enormous statistical incongruities between males and females still existed. The activists started with money, an arena with familiar rules and turf. And it wasn’t even a battle. Equality, at least for public funding of sports, soon reigned.
But what to do about performance? The statistics of difference were plain, and most activists could understand enough biology to see that these differences were likely to continue even if laws were passed demanding these differences unjust.
Enter the wits: a clever minority who had no patience with activist antics. Or, better said, a too clever minority. They thought they could shut the mouths of the activists by pushing the activists’ arguments to their logical conclusions. Want real equality between boys and girls? Then eliminate separate sports programs and throw the boys and girls together! Don’t have boys’ football and girls’ football, just have football. Don’t create boys’ wrestling and girls’ wrestling, just have wrestling.
The wits thought that the activists would see that since participation on sports teams is merit based, the level of participation of females would drop like an “I voted for Reagan” comment at an Upper West Side dinner party. But the wits were wrong. Activists, whose minds are always in delicate balance, are often unable to appreciate sarcasm. They called the wits’ bluff.
In Iowa, girls can now wrestle with boys—and not just in cars in the parking lot at the Friday night dance. But in the rings and on the mats. The news reports that one young man refused to wrestle with his female opponent in the State final. He did so because he was a gentleman of the Old School. We commend him. But his forfeit allowed the girl to “win,” thus beginning an accumulation of statistics showing equality between girls and boys.
Of course, at the distant end of the 1970s at good old St. Mary’s High where yours truly matriculated, allowing boys to wrestle girls would have produced a surge of enrollment on the wrestling team. But today’s youth are more in tune with the near desperate desire for equality, it having been inculcated in them in every class in every grade. So most will play along.
However, that pesky boy-girl dimorphism will haunt equality efforts. In that same Iowa tournament, the only other girl lost her match with a boy not as reticent as his teammate. Yet equality must be had! So how long before the first sexual harassment charge which will be used to cancel a boy’s win? How many new rules—in football, basketball, wrestling, and on and on—will be instituted delineating just how hard, when, and especially where a boy may touch a girl? These rules will be implemented not just because some women hate the idea of boys touching girls, but to increase the advantages of the girls whose biology otherwise limits them.
Constraining and restraining boys thusly will, of course, bring the object of desire, but it will also hurt the sports themselves. Who would want to watch football game where the boys are not allowed to tackle the girls? Or a wrestling match were the boys must maintain a strict distance between his hands and most of the girls’ bodies?
Remember folks: it was predicted here first.