John McEnroe. I have hardly heard his name since I was a kid listening to my dad yell at the TV screen for him to “stop throwing his racket around like a baby!” But in the last few weeks, the bad boy of tennis has captured headlines and my attention… twice. The first was for mocking Australian tennis star Margaret Court over her support of traditional marriage. He proposed that they hold “the biggest mass same sex wedding ceremony ever seen” in the arena bearing Court’s name. The second was this week when McEnroe shredded Serena Williams by suggesting that while she was the best women’s tennis player, she would “probably rank number 700” if she was listed among the men.
When he slammed Court’s stance by declaring that gender in marriage was irrelevant, he made media outlets giddy with delight. Yet, just weeks later he asserted that gender in tennis was extremely relevant. The same media elites howled for an apology. He refused.
Because if you talk to the experts, it’s obvious that you cannot ignore gender differences in tennis… or marriage.
McEnroe is a tennis expert. He’s been around the court for decades and understands the massive edge that men have over women. Men have measurable increased heart sizes, higher centers of gravity and stronger upper bodies, while women’s frames are, on average, a full 30% smaller. While we can easily see the differences when men and women face off, as when Williams was roundly defeated by Germany’s Karsten Braasch ranked 203rd in the world, gender differences between male and female tennis players is also backed by cold, hard stats.
The Universal Tennis Rating (UTR) “rates all players on a single 16-point scale, without regard to age, gender, nationality, or locale of a given match.” Today’s top male tennis player, Andy Murray, has a rating of 16.23. By contrast Serena Williams, who is unequivocally the top female player, has a rating of 13.26, similar to average mens college players. While it may be trendy to say that “gender is a social construct,” any honest tennis fan will tell you otherwise.
As a tennis pro, McEnroe cannot deny the impact that gender differences have on the sport.
Neither can authorities on marriage and family deny the impact that gender differences have on children:
…the way fathers and mothers play with their children is different… Fathers emphasize more competition, risk-taking, and independence while mothers stress more self-paced play, that is, mothers tend to encourage more play that is at their child’s level. For example, fathers are more likely to encourage their kids to go hiking with them and take a more challenging trail. Fathers are more likely to engage in wrestling and grappling with their kids and also to play sports that are more physically demanding. By promoting and encouraging diverse activities, fathers and mothers build their children up in distinct ways.
The critical impact of a dual-gender influence on children is also backed by cold, hard stats. When one gender- particularly the father- is missing, children suffer in almost predictable patterns, namely higher criminal involvement for boys, higher rates of teen pregnancy for girls, and increased poverty for both. Given that men and women offer distinct and complementary benefits to children, it is in the State’s interest to encourage mothers and fathers to parent their children together. Historically, the means through which every culture and religion has encouraged both biological parents to raise their child together was through… marriage.
Now that marriage has been redefined to make men and women optional, mothers and fathers are being viewed as optional as well. In the US, there is no longer any political or government institution that recognizes a child’s right to their mother and father. And that’s a problem.
McEnroe would do well to listen to the experts on the subject:
I knew from a young age that living with two women was not natural. I could especially see it in the homes of my friends who had a mom and a dad. I spent as much time with those friends as I possibly could. I yearned for the affection that my friends received from their dads. I wanted to know what it was like to be held and cherished by a man, what it was like to live with one from day to day. –Brandi Walton
I grew up surrounded by women who said they didn’t need or want a man. Yet, as a little girl, I so desperately wanted a daddy. It is a strange and confusing thing to walk around with this deep-down unquenchable ache for a father, for a man, in a community that says that men are unnecessary. There were times I felt so angry with my dad for not being there for me, and then times I felt angry with myself for even wanting a father to begin with. There are parts of me that still grieve over that loss today… –Heather Barwick
I think that lesbians and gay men can be good parents. I know they can because my mom was a great mom. But when people say that two moms can replace a dad or two dads can replace a mom I am like “You don’t even know.” You don’t know how I needed my dad. And my mom and Tracy are both great!! But they cannot be my dad. –Cassie
While there may be no difference between Serena Williams and John McEnroe when it comes to their passion for tennis, their biological differences have a major impact on the way they play the game. Likewise, while there may be no difference in the level of love and commitment between gay couples and heterosexual couples, there is a major difference in what these two pairings offer to children. Why would anyone believe that gender has a significant impact on a 78x23ft sports court, but not in the court of child development?
As a society, we would do well to recognize and celebrate gender differences, for the good of our athletes and children.
Excellent factual article
“a full 30% smaller.”
Are women 30% smaller then men?
According to the CDF, by height, average man in the US is around 177cm, and a woman is around 160cm. That’s about 10%. By weight, the average American woman: 75kg. American man: 90kg. That’s about 17%.
Incidentally, the average woman in 2017 is about the same weight as the average man is 1960.
Now let’s look at athletic perfomance:
Women’s 100meter WR: 10.49sec.
Men’s 100 meter WR: 9.58sec
That’s about 10%.
Women’s marathon WR: 2hr15min
Men’s marathon WR: 2hr 1min
Again, about 10%.
Your example of Murray vs. Williams 16.23 vs. 13.26 ~ 18% difference.
So 30% is probably too much of a difference between man/woman. In strength and size, its about 10~15%. Why the need to exaggerate?
And does that 10~15% REALLY make all that much of a difference in terms of raising children? It makes a difference in certain kinds of sports, but in other kinds, like curling or auto racing, the difference between men and women don’t really matter. In things like chess or being a scientist, judge, lawyer, CEO, gender differences don’t matter at all, at least in ability.
Seems this point you’re making is kinda pointless unless you can show that the EXACT SAME QUALITIES that make a great athlete are what make great parents.
—————
“When one gender- particularly the father- is missing, children suffer in almost predictable patterns,”
This probably has more to do with the fact that men are usually paid higher FOR THE SAME JOB, so they tend to bring more economic stability to a family.
“Fathers emphasize more competition, risk-taking, and independence while mothers stress more self-paced play”
This is more an individual thing. A lot of woman CEOs and entrepreneurs out there would probably be huge risk takers. And a lot of Joe 6-pack dads would just sit on their asses all day. If you raise girls to be independent and strong, they’ll naturally be bigger risk takers.
——
“we would do well to recognize and celebrate gender differences,”
Nah, as a society, it would do good to let kids be who they want to be. If a girl wants to play “boy” activities, let her. If a boy wants to play dress-up and wear make-up, let him.
“there is a major difference in what these two pairings offer to children.”
You sure your name is Ken?? You so nonchalantly throw in that lie about different pay for same work it makes me wonder about your other “facts”.
“You so nonchalantly throw in that lie about different pay for same work it makes me wonder about your other ‘facts’.”
You’re free to go check my other facts. For the physiogical differences between the average American male and female, got it from the CDC website. The fact about Serena vs. Andy is pure arithmetic based on the scores quoted in the article. WR times are freely available information, and are part of the public record. Assuming you’re able to do arithmetic, you can also check that the differences are all around 10~20%, and not the 30% quoted in the article. You understand how to do arithmetic, right?
As for the pay gap, its not just in liberal sources, but in business journals as well. It has been found to be true in pretty much every nation in the world.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jwebb/2016/03/31/women-are-still-paid-less-than-men-even-in-the-same-job/#349f04c54709
“You sure your name is Ken”
You got me there. My actual name is Jesusuxdik , but I felt that might be offensive, so I went with a pseudonym. I apologize.
Even if unnatural and immoral behavior finds ‘legitimate’ grounding under the rule of man’s Law, it can never find legitimate grounding under The Laws of Nature. Self destruction will follow anyone who would choose to beg to differ. No opinion or appeal to emotion based on subjective ideas of ‘love’ can steamroll The Laws of Nature. Nature wins every time. Left to their own devices, the men and women who seek to live in ways which violate the Laws of Nature, will find themselves at war, not with men, but with the Laws of Nature themselves. They can only perish because they violate the very Laws which determine their own survival.
Alright, well if these “Natural Laws” exist, I guess we also expect countries and cities where same-sex marriage exists to be horrible, diseased places of death and sadness? I happen to live in such a city, and its a pretty awesome place to be. Do you have any examples to the contrary?
Ken,
The athletic relationships you’ve drawn in your response are not linear to body sizes, weights and power output. And as for chess, you are completely off the mark. Men absolutely massacre women at chess on average. As at August 2017, the average rating of the top 100 women world wide in chess is 2429 ELO. The corresponding average rating of the top 100 men world wide in chess is 2704 ELO. A rating difference of that much literally guarantees that in a mass match between the world’s top 100 men and women, the women would be completed and utterly massacred. Infact, the ELO system actually let’s us calculate the predicted outcome of such a mass encounter – and the men would score around 84% of the wins compared to the women of around 16%.
And the single strongest women the world has ever seen in chess in the history of the game (Judit Polgar, who actually played in men’s tournaments because she was so far ahead of all other women in the world in terms of her playing strength) would measure up to around a ranking of 27 in the world’s current top 100 players as at August 2017.
As at the present day, the strongest female player in the world has a rating equal to that of the men ranked 98th through to 102 in the world respectively. So sorry, but please learn the facts before spouting fiction as the truth.
BTW, Katy, in the post “Marriage isn’t about God. It’s about kids” you said that marriage is between a man and a woman because of kids, and “There’s no way to know who won’t have children- there never has been.”
Allowing same-sex marriage dilutes this fundamental connection marriage has with child-rearing, and because of this, renders marriage genderless and therefore children will suffer, because having 1 example each of a male and female in their lives is vitally important. Is this correct?
And because there is NO WAY TO TELL if a certain heterosexual coupling will produce children or not, we must extend the right to marriage to heterosexual couples where 1 or more members may be infertile, but undiagnosed. ALL heterosexual couples have potential to reproduce, and therefore allowing these people or forcing people to have a fertility test before marriage, will not weaken the fundamental connection marriage has to child-rearing.
Well…, in quite a few cases, there are heterosexual pairings that you know 100% ahead of time, there will be no children.
For example:
Man with testicular cancer who had testicles removed, or for whom injury has destroyed the testicles.
Woman with a uterus removed.
A post-menopausal couple.
etc. etc.
In these cases, where you know 100% of the time that these marriages aren’t about kids, is it OK to deny them the right to marry? After all, if we allow couples who we know 100% ahead of time they can’t reproduce, we will be diluting the message that MARRIAGE IS ABOUT CHILDREN. Yes?
Ken, you are creating a straw-man argument. You choosing certain details to construct your logic, but missing the greater context. The man-woman-marriage also includes being a fundamental unit of nations throughout all recorded history, whether there were children or not in an individual marriage.
Same-sex activity was always peripheral to this, and certainly wasn’t seen as “marriage”.
Just reading the accounts of the fatherless and motherless here, shows that it is something that is hard-wired in the psyche, and grief of the lack will ultimately will be expressed in that persons life.
A male and female living in marriage (without children) is an affirmation that such marriage is the foundational unit of civilisation.
Marriage (with or without children) is also universally recognised as creating “one blood” or “one flesh” in some way, throughout recorded history, and creates extended blood-relatives. Allegiances are held to ‘family’ over ‘allies’ in the majority of historical cases – it is history, but it shows the power/significance of the male-female committed union. It is this same union alone that bestows ‘legitimacy’ (socially, legally and psychologically) to it’s own children, and to those adopted. There has been nothing else in history that can do this.
So yes, marriage is about children – by also providing the necessary socio-political structure of civilisation whether an individual marriage has children or not.
Ken, EVERY Man Woman marriage prevents the creation of fatherless children, as long as they keep their marriage vows with fidelity. Universally. It is irrelevant whether they choose to have children or not. Their marital union still prevents the creation of fatherless children.