Vice has a great article about why women will never beat men in sports.
As an argument, men being better than women at playing sports seems to make sense. It can be seen through anecdotal evidence such as the above-described experience of managing a coed softball team. Plenty of times I’ve heard women express reservations to me about playing because they “aren’t good enough.” It can also be seen simply in how the bodies of men and women differ. Generally speaking—and please note that “generally speaking” once more, as there are certainly plenty of women who could beat me up or destroy me in a game of pickup basketball—men are taller and stronger than women. This is due to all sorts of testosterone, gland secretions, muscles in their upper body rather than fat deposits, and other variables awarded in the jackpot of life. Someone sees that, and it’s easy for them to come to the conclusion that boys are better at sports than girls. They see it as an inherent trait linked to genetics. To them, it’s the same as men being unable to get pregnant and women never knowing the pain that comes with getting kicked in the balls. Read more »
Who’s going to win?
Sonny Bill’s team?
Or the team from South Africa?
Ulitmate Tazer Ball, someone finally found a way to make football interesting.
Labour are copying National of 2002, reminding New Zealand’s political elite of what happens when you let decidedly average middle managers run strategy.
Compulsory School Sport is not going to capture the public’s imagination and win votes for Labour. It is a bit like National’s 2002 strategy which involved new policies being released right up until the last week of the election, with 72 released in total.
Compare Labour’s policies to Nationals very clear and effective billboards. Big important vote winning issues. Not compulsory sport in schools.
On the plus side this policy is the first that labour have released that doesn’t a have a billy or two in additional costs attached to it.
If I had watched even one second of the World Cup I would know what all the screaming is about. But again as i said yesterday there is a thin line between not listening and not caring, I like to think I walk that line everyday.
I suspect Farrar would too, though he wouldn’t admit it.
The “Crook” is in big trouble. $4 million kind of big trouble.
[quote]Former Rich List property developer Andrew Krukziener faces bankruptcy after a Court of Appeal ruling that he must repay the Hanover finance company more than $4 million.
The court yesterday upheld an earlier High Court decision that Mr Krukziener must repay the 2002 debt.
Hanover, owned by businessmen Eric Watson and Mark Hotchin, had sought the High Court summary judgment as a basis for bankrupting Mr Krukziener.[/quote]
I don’t see how he will scuttle out of this one.