A New Battle Of The Sexes

[wallstreetguy]

Amazing that she agreed to this. She figured that the 203 guy beat the women's champ a few years ago, so let's play 671 with the bad knees. LOLOL
As if.
Even with a bigger court she could not come close. Ridiculous.
Girl bosses the world over are either pretending this did not happen or are blaming her for taking Arab money.

 

[YDB95]

Girl bosses the world over are either pretending this did not happen or are blaming her for taking Arab money.

Exactly what does a tennis match have to do with women bosses?

 

[stxjimmy]

Top Female Tennis Player Takes on No. 671 Man in 'Battle of the Sexes' - It Wasn't Even Close​

By Bryan Chai December 29, 2025 at 9:20am

The most recent iteration of the “Battle of the Sexes” only hammered that point home after the 671st-ranked male, Nick Kyrgios, beat the top-ranked female in the world, Aryna Sabalenka, on Sunday in the United Arab Emirates.

And, as Reuters noted, it wasn’t especially close, with Kyrgios winning 6-3, 6-3 in the highly publicized exhibition match at the Coca-Cola Arena in Dubai.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2005331193227616616

The game was an homage to the extremely rare female-over-male upset in sports: Billie Jean King’s victory over former Grand Slam winner Bobby Riggs in 1973, though it’s worth pointing out that King was 26 years younger than the 55-year-old Riggs in that infamous match-up.

This modern “Battle of the Sexes” featured a much more reasonable age gap, with the 27-year-old Sabalenka facing the 30-year-old Kyrgios, and thus featured a far more expected outcome.

The outcome also led to the expected discourse over the incredibly touchy topic of men playing in women’s sports in 2025.

https://www.westernjournal.com/top-...kes-no-671-man-battle-sexes-wasnt-even-close/

Number one against number 671, not even close.

If someone really has hurt you it’d be better if you discussed that, rather than just the latest sexist misogynistic bile you insist on posting.

 

[DeluxAuto]

I know that you're always triggered when I bring it up, sweetheart.

You being too dumb and/hypocritical to realize how fucking much you're triggered, as proof by your dozens of threads of the topic, has been noted.

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

Battle of the Sexes:

"Fewer young men are in college, especially at 4-year schools

College enrollment among young Americans has been declining gradually over the past decade. In 2022, the total number of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college was down by approximately 1.2 million from its peak in 2011.

Most of the decline is due to fewer young men pursuing college. About 1 million fewer young men are in college but only 0.2 million fewer young women. As a result, men make up 44% of young college students today, down from 47% in 2011, according to newly released U.S. Census Bureau data.

This shift is driven entirely by the falling share of men who are students at four-year colleges. Today, men represent only 42% of students ages 18 to 24 at four-year schools, down from 47% in 2011. . . ."

Your next boss is going to be that woman promoted over you because she's smarter than you, so enjoy (vicariously) all those tennis trophies, boys!

So men suddenly got dumber over the last decade? Your little screed begs more questions than it answers. There are answers though. You wont like them.

Your bolded statement shows you don’t even understand the topic, much less the OP’s intent.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

If it had been the number one rated male, the scores would have been 6-0 6-0

And....??? What point are you attempting to make here?
Your fragile male ego is hilarious.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Unlike some, such as your brother Rory, I'm a man of my word.

You're a pedophile supporter and most likely one as well.

 

[John_von_Neumann]

Rightguide gets off on men beating women.

 

[DeluxAuto]

I'm a man of my word.

Your word is trash, Jack.

This tracks.

 

[Hel_Books]

Battle of the Sexes:

"Fewer young men are in college, especially at 4-year schools

College enrollment among young Americans has been declining gradually over the past decade. In 2022, the total number of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college was down by approximately 1.2 million from its peak in 2011.

Most of the decline is due to fewer young men pursuing college. About 1 million fewer young men are in college but only 0.2 million fewer young women. As a result, men make up 44% of young college students today, down from 47% in 2011, according to newly released U.S. Census Bureau data.

This shift is driven entirely by the falling share of men who are students at four-year colleges. Today, men represent only 42% of students ages 18 to 24 at four-year schools, down from 47% in 2011. . . ."

Your next boss is going to be that woman promoted over you because she's smarter than you, so enjoy (vicariously) all those tennis trophies, boys!

So men suddenly got dumber over the last decade? Your little screed begs more questions than it answers. There are answers though. You wont like them.

Your bolded statement shows you don’t even understand the topic, much less the OP’s intent.

The OP's intent, as far as I can see, was to say that males tend to have greater muscle mass than females and that somehow is comforting to him.

On the other hand, since we're no longer living in caves and fighting off sabre-tooth tigers, perhaps . . .

 

[HisArpy]

Exactly what does a tennis match have to do with women bosses?

Because some people of the female persuasion believe women are equal or superior to men in all things. This match PROVES them wrong so they're ignoring it and the reality it contains in favor of their fantasy of equality.

What's funny is that you come off like you think you're smart and you couldn't figure that out on your ownsies...

 

[Rightguide]

Because some people of the female persuasion believe women are equal or superior to men in all things. This match PROVES them wrong so they're ignoring it and the reality it contains in favor of their fantasy of equality.

What's funny is that you come off like you think you're smart and you couldn't figure that out on your ownsies...

The match completely sinks the notion that women are equal to men. Get a load of this;

"The rules implemented were meant to intentionally handicap Kyrgios by taking away his serve. At the same time, Sabalenka’s side of the court was reduced by 9% based on average movement speed differences between men and women.

"I mean, they quite literally changed the court and by doing so proved the physical differences between male and female tennis players. Despite these adjustments, Kyrgios dominated the match (6-3, 6-3)."
https://www.boundingintosports.com/...e-lost-to-671-mens-player-battle-of-the-sexes

She probably would have been unable to even return his serve.

 

[ll74]

The match complete sinks the notion that women are equal to men. Get a load of this;

"The rules implemented were meant to intentionally handicap Kyrgios by taking away his serve. At the same time, Sabalenka’s side of the court was reduced by 9% based on average movement speed differences between men and women.

"I mean, they quite literally changed the court and by doing so proved the physical differences between male and female tennis players. Despite these adjustments, Kyrgios dominated the match (6-3, 6-3)."
https://www.boundingintosports.com/...e-lost-to-671-mens-player-battle-of-the-sexes

She probably would have been unable to even return his serve.

Youre such a misogynistic ass.

 

[Wilson23]

No feminist questions the PHYSICAL superiority of men. Their movement is based on the assumption that that difference should mean nothing in social or economic relations between the sexes. And why should it?

 

[schism666]

Top Female Tennis Player Takes on No. 671 Man in 'Battle of the Sexes' - It Wasn't Even Close​

By Bryan Chai December 29, 2025 at 9:20am

The most recent iteration of the “Battle of the Sexes” only hammered that point home after the 671st-ranked male, Nick Kyrgios, beat the top-ranked female in the world, Aryna Sabalenka, on Sunday in the United Arab Emirates.

And, as Reuters noted, it wasn’t especially close, with Kyrgios winning 6-3, 6-3 in the highly publicized exhibition match at the Coca-Cola Arena in Dubai.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2005331193227616616

The game was an homage to the extremely rare female-over-male upset in sports: Billie Jean King’s victory over former Grand Slam winner Bobby Riggs in 1973, though it’s worth pointing out that King was 26 years younger than the 55-year-old Riggs in that infamous match-up.

This modern “Battle of the Sexes” featured a much more reasonable age gap, with the 27-year-old Sabalenka facing the 30-year-old Kyrgios, and thus featured a far more expected outcome.

The outcome also led to the expected discourse over the incredibly touchy topic of men playing in women’s sports in 2025.

https://www.westernjournal.com/top-...kes-no-671-man-battle-sexes-wasnt-even-close/

Number one against number 671, not even close.

it's a battle anytime the opposite sex has to be in your presence, vetteman.

 

[schism666]

The match complete sinks the notion that women are equal to men.

yes, an exhibition tennis match definitely proves this to be true.

 

[Bray123]

What we need is Serena Williams (now) playing Reichguard at tennis. He can come back and tell us how useless a female player is.

 

[Rightguide]

Youre such a misogynistic ass.

Good afternoon! Well now, you didn't want to, but you just couldn't resist, could you? So now it's misogynistic to point out the truth of what they did in that match, right?

 

[Wilson23]

Good afternoon! Well now, you didn't want to, but you just couldn't resist, could you? So now it's misogynistic to point out the truth of what they did in that match, right?

See post #39.

 

[ll74]

Good afternoon! Well now, you didn't want to, but you just couldn't resist, could you?

I made a comment because I wanted to.
That's how I always post.

So now it's misogynistic to point out the truth of what they did in that match, right?

I'm discussing your comment, not the article.

 

[Rightguide]

No feminist questions the PHYSICAL superiority of men. Their movement is based on the assumption that that difference should mean nothing in social or economic relations between the sexes. And why should it?

Many feminist scholars argue that gender differences, physical and behavioral, are constructed by society, not innate or fixed. That often leads to deemphasizing biological physical differences in favor of cultural explanations.

See explanation of social constructionism in feminist theory. University of Regina

The claim “no feminist ever questions male physical superiority” is false, not because feminists deny physical facts outright, but because many strands of feminism reject the idea that biology should govern social roles or hierarchies.

 

[Rightguide]

I made a comment because I wanted to.
That's how I always post.


I'm discussing your comment, not the article.

Which comment specifically?

 

[ll74]

Which comment specifically?

Your comment. The only one you made in the post.

You gave one prior to the copy pasta and one after. Both together are one comment

Hint: it isn't about facts about the match.

It's ok, you choose to be single.

 

[Wilson23]

The claim “no feminist ever questions male physical superiority” is false, not because feminists deny physical facts outright, but because many strands of feminism reject the idea that biology should govern social roles or hierarchies.

That would NOT be denying male physical superiority.

Nor would it be in error. What reason is there, why biology should govern social roles or hierarchies?

 

[Rightguide]

Your comment. The only one you made in the post.

You gave one prior to the copy pasta and one after. Both together are one comment

Hint: it isn't about facts about the match.

It's ok, you choose to be single.

Both comments are true. The last comment I made was because that was the case when Serena Williams and another female player played an exhibition doubles match against two top-rated males, and neither could return the serves of either man. I think I posted the video at the time.