Let me see if understand this: In order to prove that women are the physical (rather than mental or moral) equals of men, we have to change the standards of judgment? How absurd! This reminds me of that "emotional intelligence" prattle of a few years back.
Equality, in a quantifiable sense, must come with the same metric attached, or it loses all meaning. The author, and her ideological cohorts, simply must face the fact squarely: Men are bigger, faster and stronger. Women have greater aerobic capacity and flotation ability (a result of greater body fat). This is not equality, it is specialization.
-- Raymond Churchfield
Both writers seem to have a very strange idea about the place of sports in the lives of men.
Convince girls to play more sports and they will learn what most boys learn from playing sports -- they stink. The lesson of the sports culture is that very, very, very few people are any good at sports. Most boys have been sent to the sidelines by high school. And you know what? It turns out not to matter. Congress is not made up of former pro athletes. The board rooms are not full of ex-jocks. Very few research scientists made All-American anything. Of the two men running for president at the moment, one was a jock, and one wasn't. Which one do you think set the better example for your little girl, George W., the jock, or Al Gore?
-- David Reilly