|
|
On June 30 2019 05:30 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2019 05:22 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 30 2019 04:47 Acrofales wrote:On June 30 2019 04:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 30 2019 04:01 Bacillus wrote:On June 30 2019 03:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 30 2019 02:36 sneirac wrote:On June 30 2019 00:37 Sr18 wrote:
Maybe the "retarded comparisons" would stop if people didn't demand equal (as in: same) pay and treatment. Yeah, because before these demands started 2 years ago no one ever made these comparisons right? That is the attitude that continues the cycle. The womens game doesn't get the respect and the viewership to become commercially competitive, because the quality is too low. And the quality is too low, because there is not enough money to improve it. Rinse, repeat and ignore any of the real causes. Women don't deserve equal pay because they're better (they're not) or because they make more money (comparisons of income are disingenuous at best). They deserve equal income because sports are cultural institutions and, at a national level, they should be supported equally to support and promote both men and women playing the sport at all levels. I think this approach sort of runs into issues of it's own because football itself is a very privileged sport. If it's only cultural institution that matters, surely other sports and activities deserve equal attention and resources too. At least in Finland world class speed skaters are developing their blades in garages and some ski jumpers are sewing their jumping suits. It's a rough world out there and vast majority of sports outside the few favourites are working extremely hard to develop and grow. In that sense I think popularity is the thing that counts. It's by no means ideal, but it's probably the best justification we've got. Football is one of the least privileged sports out there. It requires less resources to play competitively than basketball, (American) football, baseball, hockey, rugby, cricket, or many, many other sports. And I said sports, not just soccer. I think all sports are important cultural institutions and women should be paid equally in every sport at the national level. In particularly imbalanced sports, this would serve as a way to make up for the lack of infrastructure due to institutionalized sexism that kept women from playing or excelling in these sports for generations. I don't think the first part is true at all. Absolute speed and strength doesn't matter at all in football. If there was some biological reason that foot-eye coordination in women was worse than in men you might have a point, but clumsy passes have nothing to do with speed or strength, and I see no reason why there shouldn't be women with the potential to be equally good at passing as Xavi or finding the right time to accelerate and then have the shooting accuracy as Ronaldo. These are obviously exceptionally talented players that there aren't many of. It's the entire infrastructure (and money involved) in men's football that finds them at a very young age among a vast population of the world (far beyond just developed nations) and brings them to facilities where they can train and develop their talents.
And, in fact, hockey is an excellent example of a sport where the male and female versions have approximately equal prestige (field hockey that is). I don't understand how you can possibly make this argument. It takes a very purposeful level of ignorance. Even assuming that there is no biological difference in the cognitive (tactical), reflex, or fine mechanical abilities of men vs. women (i.e. if properly trained, women could be just as good as men at the mental, reflexive, or technical aspects of the sport): 1) Men are taller. If competing against women, they will win the vast majority aerial duels, which is an important facet of the game. It also means that male keepers are much better at stopping high shots because they can reach them better. 2) Men are stronger. This means that they will win tackles much more often. It also contributes to muscle strength in the legs (allowing for higher jumping for both headers and keeper saves), neck (allowing for stronger headers), and legs/foot (allowing for faster shots that are harder to block). 3) Men are faster. This allows them to easily outpace women and run around them or make runs behind them. It also means that long balls are less frequently lost because the ball won't outpace men as much as it will women. Yea, you can always say that any of these qualities are "on average" better in men, but being a professional athlete self-selects for the individuals that are at the extreme end of the spectrum in these categories since having those qualities (extra tall, extra fast, extra strong, etc.) allows you to excel in certain facets of the game. But nobody is talking about men playing vs women. So what is the point of comparing men's speed, height and strength? Sure, Robben would run circles around even a very fast female defender, but it's entirely beside the point. The point is that there is no reason why a game of women playing other women should be less entertaining than men vs men. And it really is right now as the quality of play is lower. And that has nothing to do with them being slower or weaker than men, and everything tondo with having less training in things like passing, running into open spaces, tactics, shooting, and all those other millions of things that make up a game of football as opposed to a 10 mile run. And yes, of course, I don't doubt that overall some of that is because women don't get scouted from really young ages all over the world, because there's no money in it, so the female Ronaldo is probably a school teacher or a factory worker somewhere instead of a professional football player. People are talking about men vs. women because they keep using the "women's team is better than men" to justify a change in pay. I addressed that above (summary: it's a bad argument. Women should be paid equally for different reasons). The person that I quoted then tried to argue that physical differences don't make men better at the game. And yes, there is absolutely a reason that sports played at a lower level aren't necessarily as entertaining as a higher level. Sure, it's not an absolute rule, but it's a weak argument to simply dismiss people's preferences for the men's game over the women's in a given sport by pretending that the difference in quality doesn't affect the level of entertainment. But nobody who says "women's team is better than men" thinks the women's team can beat the men's team. Rather they're saying that they are performing far better in the tournaments they play in (and are literally only talking about the US team). If we take this to tennis, I doubt Serena Williams can beat Stan Wawrinka. That doesn't mean that I can't say that "Serena Williams is better than Stan Wawrinka".
You're giving an extremely generous interpretation to justify something when your interpretation just really isn't there. Sure, your interpretation makes the most sense and relieves the dissonance between acknowledging that men are better at the game while simultaneously acknowledging the achievements that the women have accomplished that the men haven't, but that nuance simply isn't in the discussion at large. It's all just "Lolz the men suck ass and the women are the best" without any acknowledgement of the fact that the men's game is much harder to compete in than the women's game.
|
Let's fucking Go!
Chile vs Perú in the semis, thats the way i wanted it, two of the best rivalries in Southamerica: Brasil vs Argentina, and Peru vs Chile... i can't belive how amazing this semi finals are going to be. If Chile and Brasil advance and meet in the finals, Chile is going to redeem all these years of past defeats vs Brasil. WC '62, WC 98', WC '10, WC'14....
Get Ready Perú, daddy is home!
|
On June 30 2019 05:30 Acrofales wrote:
That doesn't mean that I can't say that "Serena Williams is better than Stan Wawrinka".
Well you can say something like that but you'd be empirically wrong and it would take some serious mental gymnastics to make it right. To say someone is better than someone else at something implies that if they went head to head the person you are implying is better would win.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51479 Posts
On June 30 2019 06:32 XenOsky wrote:
Let's fucking Go!
Chile vs Perú in the semis, thats the way i wanted it, two of the best rivalries in Southamerica: Brasil vs Argentina, and Peru vs Chile... i can't belive how amazing this semi finals are going to be. If Chile and Brasil advance and meet in the finals, Chile is going to redeem all these years of past defeats vs Brasil. WC '62, WC 98', WC '10, WC'14....
Get Ready Perú, daddy is home!
Can't beleive Suarez missed his penalty in that game, but yeah well done Peru! Surely its set up for another Chile underdog story in the grand final vs Argentina/Brazil.
|
On June 30 2019 04:19 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2019 04:15 Bacillus wrote:On June 30 2019 04:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 30 2019 04:01 Bacillus wrote:On June 30 2019 03:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 30 2019 02:36 sneirac wrote:On June 30 2019 00:37 Sr18 wrote:
Maybe the "retarded comparisons" would stop if people didn't demand equal (as in: same) pay and treatment. Yeah, because before these demands started 2 years ago no one ever made these comparisons right? That is the attitude that continues the cycle. The womens game doesn't get the respect and the viewership to become commercially competitive, because the quality is too low. And the quality is too low, because there is not enough money to improve it. Rinse, repeat and ignore any of the real causes. Women don't deserve equal pay because they're better (they're not) or because they make more money (comparisons of income are disingenuous at best). They deserve equal income because sports are cultural institutions and, at a national level, they should be supported equally to support and promote both men and women playing the sport at all levels. I think this approach sort of runs into issues of it's own because football itself is a very privileged sport. If it's only cultural institution that matters, surely other sports and activities deserve equal attention and resources too. At least in Finland world class speed skaters are developing their blades in garages and some ski jumpers are sewing their jumping suits. It's a rough world out there and vast majority of sports outside the few favourites are working extremely hard to develop and grow. In that sense I think popularity is the thing that counts. It's by no means ideal, but it's probably the best justification we've got. Football is one of the least privileged sports out there. It requires less resources to play competitively than basketball, (American) football, baseball, hockey, rugby, cricket, or many, many other sports. We are not talking about requirement for playing the sport. We are talking about how much media attention, funding and all that football gets. Football gets a lot in almost every possible way.
And I said sports, not just soccer. I think all sports are important cultural institutions and women should be paid equally in every sport at the national level.
We are not talking about gender only here. We are talking about the funding of sports instituion in general and you're running into a massive issue where every sport deserves equal coverage and resources and there simply isn't that kind of resources available. In the end you start have to prioritizing and it usually comes down to popularity or some other equally nasty metric. If we go by cultural instituion value, everyone is going to get half a penny and a lot of the more popular sports aren't going to play along with that kind of stuff. At no point did I even mention paying two different sports equally. This discussion is about gender discrimination. You haven't provided a reason why that argument should be generalized beyond gender discrimination to inter-sport comparisons.
The thing I was referring to was your suggestion of paying athletes equally because they're both representetatives of a sporting institution. You're looking at this as an issue inside football whereas I'm looking at this as a more general thingy right now.
|
On June 30 2019 08:19 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2019 05:30 Acrofales wrote:
That doesn't mean that I can't say that "Serena Williams is better than Stan Wawrinka".
Well you can say something like that but you'd be empirically wrong and it would take some serious mental gymnastics to make it right. To say someone is better than someone else at something implies that if they went head to head the person you are implying is better would win.
No, it doesn't. It requires accepting that women's tennis is a different sport to men's tennis. It just happens to be easy to compare them because they have (mostly) the same rules and the same tournaments.
I can also make other comparisons that are harder to do like say "Federer is better (at his sport) than Ronaldo". Head to head is obviously out of the question, and we'd have to agree on what it means to be good at tennis and at football and how to compare these two things. But that doesn't mean we can't.
And of course people aren't talking about women's teams going up against men's teams in a head to head, as people here aren't idiots. It was all about the US women's team wanting equal pay. And yes, the women's team have performed better than the men's team. I don't know about viewer numbers, ad revenue or name recognition of the players, but I'm not sure it matters. I am, after all, socialist enough to not want capitalism to be the deciding factor absolutely everywhere.
|
On June 30 2019 16:44 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2019 08:19 SK.Testie wrote:On June 30 2019 05:30 Acrofales wrote:
That doesn't mean that I can't say that "Serena Williams is better than Stan Wawrinka".
Well you can say something like that but you'd be empirically wrong and it would take some serious mental gymnastics to make it right. To say someone is better than someone else at something implies that if they went head to head the person you are implying is better would win. No, it doesn't. It requires accepting that women's tennis is a different sport to men's tennis. It just happens to be easy to compare them because they have (mostly) the same rules and the same tournaments. I can also make other comparisons that are harder to do like say "Federer is better (at his sport) than Ronaldo". Head to head is obviously out of the question, and we'd have to agree on what it means to be good at tennis and at football and how to compare these two things. But that doesn't mean we can't. And of course people aren't talking about women's teams going up against men's teams in a head to head, as people here aren't idiots. It was all about the US women's team wanting equal pay. And yes, the women's team have performed better than the men's team. I don't know about viewer numbers, ad revenue or name recognition of the players, but I'm not sure it matters. I am, after all, socialist enough to not want capitalism to be the deciding factor absolutely everywhere.
this is all we need to hear for us to understand you dont know what youre talking about.
if you want to make the assumption that womens sports are different to mens sports to begin with, then the womens team complaining that they make less than the mens team has absolutely no basis at all. why compare with a team that plays a different sport to you? see how your logic fails there?
therefore its directly relevant how the mens and womens teams compare in terms of absolute skill, entertainment value etc.
the unique case for the womens US team is that they (apparently) bring in more revenue than the mens teams, which would definitely be a reason for why they should get equal (arguably more) pay than men. however for the majority of sports with competitive men and female divisions, this wont be the case; because sports fans want to watch the best players compete and the best players by all objective measurements will be much more often than not, men. this isnt even some capitalist conspiracy, its just the result of human nature.
|
On June 30 2019 17:55 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2019 16:44 Acrofales wrote:On June 30 2019 08:19 SK.Testie wrote:On June 30 2019 05:30 Acrofales wrote:
That doesn't mean that I can't say that "Serena Williams is better than Stan Wawrinka".
Well you can say something like that but you'd be empirically wrong and it would take some serious mental gymnastics to make it right. To say someone is better than someone else at something implies that if they went head to head the person you are implying is better would win. No, it doesn't. It requires accepting that women's tennis is a different sport to men's tennis. It just happens to be easy to compare them because they have (mostly) the same rules and the same tournaments. I can also make other comparisons that are harder to do like say "Federer is better (at his sport) than Ronaldo". Head to head is obviously out of the question, and we'd have to agree on what it means to be good at tennis and at football and how to compare these two things. But that doesn't mean we can't. And of course people aren't talking about women's teams going up against men's teams in a head to head, as people here aren't idiots. It was all about the US women's team wanting equal pay. And yes, the women's team have performed better than the men's team. I don't know about viewer numbers, ad revenue or name recognition of the players, but I'm not sure it matters. I am, after all, socialist enough to not want capitalism to be the deciding factor absolutely everywhere. this is all we need to hear for us to understand you dont know what youre talking about. if you want to make the assumption that womens sports are different to mens sports to begin with, then the womens team complaining that they make less than the mens team has absolutely no basis at all. why compare with a team that plays a different sport to you? see how your logic fails there? therefore its directly relevant how the mens and womens teams compare in terms of absolute skill, entertainment value etc. the unique case for the womens US team is that they (apparently) bring in more revenue than the mens teams, which would definitely be a reason for why they should get equal (arguably more) pay than men. however for the majority of sports with competitive men and female divisions, this wont be the case; because sports fans want to watch the best players compete and the best players by all objective measurements will be much more often than not, men. this isnt even some capitalist conspiracy, its just the result of human nature.
If the "all the objective measurements" come down solely to biological facts that men are just physically stronger/faster/taller, then any lawsuit should win because this is textbook sexism and nothing else.
It means there is no way and there will never be a way, no matter how much womens sport improve, to ever remotely compete with the income of males, exclusively because of gender.
e: And once again this doesn't even remotely address the point how much past prohibitions are still factoring into the equations.
|
Yeah I mean some people don't seem to get what discrimination is and how it works.
There doesn't have to be a bunch of old white men sitting around making decisions that make it impossible for women ever to make as much as men for there to be gender discrimination.
There doesn't have to be, but hilariously in this case that is exactly what has happened and is still happening. Women are paid less because their game is less developed, which is because men told them they weren't allowed to play.
There isn't a more blatant example of gender pay discrimination around in my opinion. To avoid discrimination, there should a conceivable circumstance where the pay is equal.
|
For the exact same reason as in any other field or situation, because they aren't affected. However, they would be affected if actually something were to be done about equality.
When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression
|
On June 30 2019 17:55 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2019 16:44 Acrofales wrote:On June 30 2019 08:19 SK.Testie wrote:On June 30 2019 05:30 Acrofales wrote:
That doesn't mean that I can't say that "Serena Williams is better than Stan Wawrinka".
Well you can say something like that but you'd be empirically wrong and it would take some serious mental gymnastics to make it right. To say someone is better than someone else at something implies that if they went head to head the person you are implying is better would win. No, it doesn't. It requires accepting that women's tennis is a different sport to men's tennis. It just happens to be easy to compare them because they have (mostly) the same rules and the same tournaments. I can also make other comparisons that are harder to do like say "Federer is better (at his sport) than Ronaldo". Head to head is obviously out of the question, and we'd have to agree on what it means to be good at tennis and at football and how to compare these two things. But that doesn't mean we can't. And of course people aren't talking about women's teams going up against men's teams in a head to head, as people here aren't idiots. It was all about the US women's team wanting equal pay. And yes, the women's team have performed better than the men's team. I don't know about viewer numbers, ad revenue or name recognition of the players, but I'm not sure it matters. I am, after all, socialist enough to not want capitalism to be the deciding factor absolutely everywhere. this is all we need to hear for us to understand you dont know what youre talking about. if you want to make the assumption that womens sports are different to mens sports to begin with, then the womens team complaining that they make less than the mens team has absolutely no basis at all. why compare with a team that plays a different sport to you? see how your logic fails there? therefore its directly relevant how the mens and womens teams compare in terms of absolute skill, entertainment value etc.
That is by far the most interesting point for why women shouldn't earn equal wages. And similarly, why the women's Wimbledon prize wasn't equal to the men's prize for decades (it was only equal from 2007 onwards). Different sport, so different prizes. Then you could argue that it's still sexist because women aren't allowed to compete in the men's competition (and vice versa), but that's a more complicated discussion.
I think the simplest argument here is that football has plenty of money in it that we can easily share national team wages equally between the women's and men's teams without worrying about who actually generates more revenue. If only to avoid the semblance of sexism and to encourage girls to do more sports in general.
Or, if you really want, make a part of the salary a % of the revenue generated by the team. And that % is the same for men and women.
|
On June 30 2019 19:30 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2019 17:55 evilfatsh1t wrote:On June 30 2019 16:44 Acrofales wrote:On June 30 2019 08:19 SK.Testie wrote:On June 30 2019 05:30 Acrofales wrote:
That doesn't mean that I can't say that "Serena Williams is better than Stan Wawrinka".
Well you can say something like that but you'd be empirically wrong and it would take some serious mental gymnastics to make it right. To say someone is better than someone else at something implies that if they went head to head the person you are implying is better would win. No, it doesn't. It requires accepting that women's tennis is a different sport to men's tennis. It just happens to be easy to compare them because they have (mostly) the same rules and the same tournaments. I can also make other comparisons that are harder to do like say "Federer is better (at his sport) than Ronaldo". Head to head is obviously out of the question, and we'd have to agree on what it means to be good at tennis and at football and how to compare these two things. But that doesn't mean we can't. And of course people aren't talking about women's teams going up against men's teams in a head to head, as people here aren't idiots. It was all about the US women's team wanting equal pay. And yes, the women's team have performed better than the men's team. I don't know about viewer numbers, ad revenue or name recognition of the players, but I'm not sure it matters. I am, after all, socialist enough to not want capitalism to be the deciding factor absolutely everywhere. this is all we need to hear for us to understand you dont know what youre talking about. if you want to make the assumption that womens sports are different to mens sports to begin with, then the womens team complaining that they make less than the mens team has absolutely no basis at all. why compare with a team that plays a different sport to you? see how your logic fails there? therefore its directly relevant how the mens and womens teams compare in terms of absolute skill, entertainment value etc. That is by far the most interesting point for why women shouldn't earn equal wages. And similarly, why the women's Wimbledon prize wasn't equal to the men's prize for decades (it was only equal from 2007 onwards). Different sport, so different prizes. Then you could argue that it's still sexist because women aren't allowed to compete in the men's competition (and vice versa), but that's a more complicated discussion. I think the simplest argument here is that football has plenty of money in it that we can easily share national team wages equally between the women's and men's teams without worrying about who actually generates more revenue. If only to avoid the semblance of sexism and to encourage girls to do more sports in general. Or, if you really want, make a part of the salary a % of the revenue generated by the team. And that % is the same for men and women.
Fair wages in our world? I wish that were reality. Should also happen in business and companies
|
On June 30 2019 19:30 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2019 17:55 evilfatsh1t wrote:On June 30 2019 16:44 Acrofales wrote:On June 30 2019 08:19 SK.Testie wrote:On June 30 2019 05:30 Acrofales wrote:
That doesn't mean that I can't say that "Serena Williams is better than Stan Wawrinka".
Well you can say something like that but you'd be empirically wrong and it would take some serious mental gymnastics to make it right. To say someone is better than someone else at something implies that if they went head to head the person you are implying is better would win. No, it doesn't. It requires accepting that women's tennis is a different sport to men's tennis. It just happens to be easy to compare them because they have (mostly) the same rules and the same tournaments. I can also make other comparisons that are harder to do like say "Federer is better (at his sport) than Ronaldo". Head to head is obviously out of the question, and we'd have to agree on what it means to be good at tennis and at football and how to compare these two things. But that doesn't mean we can't. And of course people aren't talking about women's teams going up against men's teams in a head to head, as people here aren't idiots. It was all about the US women's team wanting equal pay. And yes, the women's team have performed better than the men's team. I don't know about viewer numbers, ad revenue or name recognition of the players, but I'm not sure it matters. I am, after all, socialist enough to not want capitalism to be the deciding factor absolutely everywhere. this is all we need to hear for us to understand you dont know what youre talking about. if you want to make the assumption that womens sports are different to mens sports to begin with, then the womens team complaining that they make less than the mens team has absolutely no basis at all. why compare with a team that plays a different sport to you? see how your logic fails there? therefore its directly relevant how the mens and womens teams compare in terms of absolute skill, entertainment value etc. That is by far the most interesting point for why women shouldn't earn equal wages. And similarly, why the women's Wimbledon prize wasn't equal to the men's prize for decades (it was only equal from 2007 onwards). Different sport, so different prizes. Then you could argue that it's still sexist because women aren't allowed to compete in the men's competition (and vice versa), but that's a more complicated discussion. I think the simplest argument here is that football has plenty of money in it that we can easily share national team wages equally between the women's and men's teams without worrying about who actually generates more revenue. If only to avoid the semblance of sexism and to encourage girls to do more sports in general. Or, if you really want, make a part of the salary a % of the revenue generated by the team. And that % is the same for men and women.
I think the simplest argument is that they should just make the same money because it (gender equality and the promotion of sports as a social and cultural good) is an inherent value that we should promote on a national level. It shouldn't be based on "skill" (the men will be better in absolute skill and comparisons will only create arguments) and it shouldn't be about money (any men's equivalent tournament will bring in significantly more money for the foreseeable future).
|
|
|
On June 30 2019 18:30 sneirac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2019 17:55 evilfatsh1t wrote:On June 30 2019 16:44 Acrofales wrote:On June 30 2019 08:19 SK.Testie wrote:On June 30 2019 05:30 Acrofales wrote:
That doesn't mean that I can't say that "Serena Williams is better than Stan Wawrinka".
Well you can say something like that but you'd be empirically wrong and it would take some serious mental gymnastics to make it right. To say someone is better than someone else at something implies that if they went head to head the person you are implying is better would win. No, it doesn't. It requires accepting that women's tennis is a different sport to men's tennis. It just happens to be easy to compare them because they have (mostly) the same rules and the same tournaments. I can also make other comparisons that are harder to do like say "Federer is better (at his sport) than Ronaldo". Head to head is obviously out of the question, and we'd have to agree on what it means to be good at tennis and at football and how to compare these two things. But that doesn't mean we can't. And of course people aren't talking about women's teams going up against men's teams in a head to head, as people here aren't idiots. It was all about the US women's team wanting equal pay. And yes, the women's team have performed better than the men's team. I don't know about viewer numbers, ad revenue or name recognition of the players, but I'm not sure it matters. I am, after all, socialist enough to not want capitalism to be the deciding factor absolutely everywhere. this is all we need to hear for us to understand you dont know what youre talking about. if you want to make the assumption that womens sports are different to mens sports to begin with, then the womens team complaining that they make less than the mens team has absolutely no basis at all. why compare with a team that plays a different sport to you? see how your logic fails there? therefore its directly relevant how the mens and womens teams compare in terms of absolute skill, entertainment value etc. the unique case for the womens US team is that they (apparently) bring in more revenue than the mens teams, which would definitely be a reason for why they should get equal (arguably more) pay than men. however for the majority of sports with competitive men and female divisions, this wont be the case; because sports fans want to watch the best players compete and the best players by all objective measurements will be much more often than not, men. this isnt even some capitalist conspiracy, its just the result of human nature. If the "all the objective measurements" come down solely to biological facts that men are just physically stronger/faster/taller, then any lawsuit should win because this is textbook sexism and nothing else. It means there is no way and there will never be a way, no matter how much womens sport improve, to ever remotely compete with the income of males, exclusively because of gender. e: And once again this doesn't even remotely address the point how much past prohibitions are still factoring into the equations.
if you actually read my post properly instead of getting triggered about the topic youd see that i didnt say anything that your post claims i did.
by any measurement of skill you apply against men and women, men will trump women hands down in the majority of physical sports. there is no prejudice or discrimination here, its simple fact. i dont know how you can claim that its sexist to say that you will find higher quality football by watching mens football rather than womens football.
and if we assume that the amount of skill on display is a significant factor in viewership and therefore revenue generation, there is no abolutely no argument as to why mens football teams shouldnt make more than womens football teams.
now like i said, the womens US team appears to generate more revenue which would completely justify their case for asking for equal pay. but to turn this into some ridiculous movement that all women should earn equal pay to their male counterparts in any sport is stupid.
if the portuguese womens football team or the argentinian womens football team was asking for equal pay they would be ridiculed and rightly so. the mens national teams for portugal and argentina would completely dominate viewership and revenue generation numbers (because everyone enjoys watching cr7 and messi), and if the female national team asked for a fair share of the pie for doing pretty much nothing other than merely existing it sure as hell wouldnt be fair to ronaldo and messi.
note how none of the players in the womens US national team are asking for the same salaries as their male counterparts at their respective clubs? because they understand that they do not deserve such amounts of money when no one watches female leagues. the only reason the US national team has a case is because its an isolated incident that actually has revenue numbers in favour of them.
tbh the most sensible thing is that like stratos_spear said, national team salaries are calculated irrespective of revenue numbers. placing more value on the "representing your country" aspect and simply having a fixed salary for all players would be fair and reasonable, as no one should realistically be dependant on an income source from their national team anyway. the only problem would be that, as far as i know, national team FAs are supposed to be non-profit. an equal division of total revenue between mens and womens players would be asking for one gender to make a charitable donation to the other because both teams will not have equal revenue streams. if you divide the revenue by the lowest common denominator then you have some money left over that has no where to be spent but cannot be kept by the FA because theyre supposed to be non-profit. how national team FAs determine player salaries is a different discussion though
|
On June 30 2019 22:14 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2019 18:30 sneirac wrote:On June 30 2019 17:55 evilfatsh1t wrote:On June 30 2019 16:44 Acrofales wrote:On June 30 2019 08:19 SK.Testie wrote:On June 30 2019 05:30 Acrofales wrote:
That doesn't mean that I can't say that "Serena Williams is better than Stan Wawrinka".
Well you can say something like that but you'd be empirically wrong and it would take some serious mental gymnastics to make it right. To say someone is better than someone else at something implies that if they went head to head the person you are implying is better would win. No, it doesn't. It requires accepting that women's tennis is a different sport to men's tennis. It just happens to be easy to compare them because they have (mostly) the same rules and the same tournaments. I can also make other comparisons that are harder to do like say "Federer is better (at his sport) than Ronaldo". Head to head is obviously out of the question, and we'd have to agree on what it means to be good at tennis and at football and how to compare these two things. But that doesn't mean we can't. And of course people aren't talking about women's teams going up against men's teams in a head to head, as people here aren't idiots. It was all about the US women's team wanting equal pay. And yes, the women's team have performed better than the men's team. I don't know about viewer numbers, ad revenue or name recognition of the players, but I'm not sure it matters. I am, after all, socialist enough to not want capitalism to be the deciding factor absolutely everywhere. this is all we need to hear for us to understand you dont know what youre talking about. if you want to make the assumption that womens sports are different to mens sports to begin with, then the womens team complaining that they make less than the mens team has absolutely no basis at all. why compare with a team that plays a different sport to you? see how your logic fails there? therefore its directly relevant how the mens and womens teams compare in terms of absolute skill, entertainment value etc. the unique case for the womens US team is that they (apparently) bring in more revenue than the mens teams, which would definitely be a reason for why they should get equal (arguably more) pay than men. however for the majority of sports with competitive men and female divisions, this wont be the case; because sports fans want to watch the best players compete and the best players by all objective measurements will be much more often than not, men. this isnt even some capitalist conspiracy, its just the result of human nature. If the "all the objective measurements" come down solely to biological facts that men are just physically stronger/faster/taller, then any lawsuit should win because this is textbook sexism and nothing else. It means there is no way and there will never be a way, no matter how much womens sport improve, to ever remotely compete with the income of males, exclusively because of gender. e: And once again this doesn't even remotely address the point how much past prohibitions are still factoring into the equations. if you actually read my post properly instead of getting triggered about the topic youd see that i didnt say anything that your post claims i did. by any measurement of skill you apply against men and women, men will trump women hands down in the majority of physical sports. there is no prejudice or discrimination here, its simple fact. i dont know how you can claim that its sexist to say that you will find higher quality football by watching mens football rather than womens football. and if we assume that the amount of skill on display is a significant factor in viewership and therefore revenue generation, there is no abolutely no argument as to why mens football teams shouldnt make more than womens football teams. now like i said, the womens US team appears to generate more revenue which would completely justify their case for asking for equal pay. but to turn this into some ridiculous movement that all women should earn equal pay to their male counterparts in any sport is stupid. if the portuguese womens football team or the argentinian womens football team was asking for equal pay they would be ridiculed and rightly so. the mens national teams for portugal and argentina would completely dominate viewership and revenue generation numbers (because everyone enjoys watching cr7 and messi), and if the female national team asked for a fair share of the pie for doing pretty much nothing other than merely existing it sure as hell wouldnt be fair to ronaldo and messi. note how none of the players in the womens US national team are asking for the same salaries as their male counterparts at their respective clubs? because they understand that they do not deserve such amounts of money when no one watches female leagues. the only reason the US national team has a case is because its an isolated incident that actually has revenue numbers in favour of them. tbh the most sensible thing is that like stratos_spear said, national team salaries are calculated irrespective of revenue numbers. placing more value on the "representing your country" aspect and simply having a fixed salary for all players would be fair and reasonable, as no one should realistically be dependant on an income source from their national team anyway. how national team FAs determine player salaries is a different discussion though
The skill disparity has two causes:
- differences in physical ability
- a catastrophic lack of funding due to a sexist past
Women can't fix the first part ever, and cannot fix the 2nd without men repairing the damage they did in the past. So you are declaring mens sport more entertaining based on pure sexism and past sexism that hasn't been properly corrected.
I'm actually fully agreeing with you on the secondary part. I also don't think that women should immediately be paid the same or even closely the same salaries in club football.
But it is outrageous to just claim that the disparity in skill, commercialization and pay has nothing to do with past and current sexism, and that the women just need to get better and more entertaining to compete. It just isn't possible without help or anti sexism legislation.
|
again, i dont understand how you can call biological differences "pure sexism".
is it pure sexism that men cannot give birth? do you see how stupid you sound?
also your latter argument is basically a discussion about equal opportunity vs equal outcome.
you are asking for equal outcome, which you will never ever get. the whole argument behind women getting equal pay is not because its a stepping stone towards equal outcome, its because its fair for them to have equal opportunity.
stop making this some retarded debate about women being oppressed in football for so long that they arent as good as men. they will never be as good as men even if you threw all the worlds money at them and gave them 1000 years.
equal outcome is not possible in any gender debate because men and women are inherently different and we will continue to make personal choices that are different from each other.
|
On June 30 2019 22:55 evilfatsh1t wrote:
again, i dont understand how you can call biological differences "pure sexism".
is it pure sexism that men cannot give birth? do you see how stupid you sound?
also your latter argument is basically a discussion about equal opportunity vs equal outcome.
you are asking for equal outcome, which you will never ever get. the whole argument behind women getting equal pay is not because its a stepping stone towards equal outcome, its because its fair for them to have equal opportunity.
stop making this some retarded debate about women being oppressed in football for so long that they arent as good as men. they will never be as good as men even if you threw all the worlds money at them and gave them 1000 years.
equal outcome is not possible in any gender debate because men and women are inherently different and we will continue to make personal choices that are different from each other.
So where is the equal opportunity? You are literally saying it would be fair for them to have equal opportunity, then saying that they can never have equal opportunity, and then saying that that is fair.
|
On June 30 2019 22:37 sneirac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2019 22:14 evilfatsh1t wrote:On June 30 2019 18:30 sneirac wrote:On June 30 2019 17:55 evilfatsh1t wrote:On June 30 2019 16:44 Acrofales wrote:On June 30 2019 08:19 SK.Testie wrote:On June 30 2019 05:30 Acrofales wrote:
That doesn't mean that I can't say that "Serena Williams is better than Stan Wawrinka".
Well you can say something like that but you'd be empirically wrong and it would take some serious mental gymnastics to make it right. To say someone is better than someone else at something implies that if they went head to head the person you are implying is better would win. No, it doesn't. It requires accepting that women's tennis is a different sport to men's tennis. It just happens to be easy to compare them because they have (mostly) the same rules and the same tournaments. I can also make other comparisons that are harder to do like say "Federer is better (at his sport) than Ronaldo". Head to head is obviously out of the question, and we'd have to agree on what it means to be good at tennis and at football and how to compare these two things. But that doesn't mean we can't. And of course people aren't talking about women's teams going up against men's teams in a head to head, as people here aren't idiots. It was all about the US women's team wanting equal pay. And yes, the women's team have performed better than the men's team. I don't know about viewer numbers, ad revenue or name recognition of the players, but I'm not sure it matters. I am, after all, socialist enough to not want capitalism to be the deciding factor absolutely everywhere. this is all we need to hear for us to understand you dont know what youre talking about. if you want to make the assumption that womens sports are different to mens sports to begin with, then the womens team complaining that they make less than the mens team has absolutely no basis at all. why compare with a team that plays a different sport to you? see how your logic fails there? therefore its directly relevant how the mens and womens teams compare in terms of absolute skill, entertainment value etc. the unique case for the womens US team is that they (apparently) bring in more revenue than the mens teams, which would definitely be a reason for why they should get equal (arguably more) pay than men. however for the majority of sports with competitive men and female divisions, this wont be the case; because sports fans want to watch the best players compete and the best players by all objective measurements will be much more often than not, men. this isnt even some capitalist conspiracy, its just the result of human nature. If the "all the objective measurements" come down solely to biological facts that men are just physically stronger/faster/taller, then any lawsuit should win because this is textbook sexism and nothing else. It means there is no way and there will never be a way, no matter how much womens sport improve, to ever remotely compete with the income of males, exclusively because of gender. e: And once again this doesn't even remotely address the point how much past prohibitions are still factoring into the equations. if you actually read my post properly instead of getting triggered about the topic youd see that i didnt say anything that your post claims i did. by any measurement of skill you apply against men and women, men will trump women hands down in the majority of physical sports. there is no prejudice or discrimination here, its simple fact. i dont know how you can claim that its sexist to say that you will find higher quality football by watching mens football rather than womens football. and if we assume that the amount of skill on display is a significant factor in viewership and therefore revenue generation, there is no abolutely no argument as to why mens football teams shouldnt make more than womens football teams. now like i said, the womens US team appears to generate more revenue which would completely justify their case for asking for equal pay. but to turn this into some ridiculous movement that all women should earn equal pay to their male counterparts in any sport is stupid. if the portuguese womens football team or the argentinian womens football team was asking for equal pay they would be ridiculed and rightly so. the mens national teams for portugal and argentina would completely dominate viewership and revenue generation numbers (because everyone enjoys watching cr7 and messi), and if the female national team asked for a fair share of the pie for doing pretty much nothing other than merely existing it sure as hell wouldnt be fair to ronaldo and messi. note how none of the players in the womens US national team are asking for the same salaries as their male counterparts at their respective clubs? because they understand that they do not deserve such amounts of money when no one watches female leagues. the only reason the US national team has a case is because its an isolated incident that actually has revenue numbers in favour of them. tbh the most sensible thing is that like stratos_spear said, national team salaries are calculated irrespective of revenue numbers. placing more value on the "representing your country" aspect and simply having a fixed salary for all players would be fair and reasonable, as no one should realistically be dependant on an income source from their national team anyway. how national team FAs determine player salaries is a different discussion though The skill disparity has two causes: - differences in physical ability - a catastrophic lack of funding due to a sexist past Women can't fix the first part ever, and cannot fix the 2nd without men repairing the damage they did in the past. So you are declaring mens sport more entertaining based on pure sexism and past sexism that hasn't been properly corrected. I'm actually fully agreeing with you on the secondary part. I also don't think that women should immediately be paid the same or even closely the same salaries in club football. But it is outrageous to just claim that the disparity in skill, commercialization and pay has nothing to do with past and current sexism, and that the women just need to get better and more entertaining to compete. It just isn't possible without help or anti sexism legislation.
would you have the same kind of views, to something like, say modelling?
|
Because you keep using biology as an argment that women cannot be as good at football as men and that mens football is better and more entertaining. You are bringing up equality of opportunity, but admitting yourself it doesn't exist in the first place because of the biological differences alone.
The womens game will never be on the same level, it cannot be because of biological differences. But it can be somewhere between almost as entertaining or could even more entertaining because of less idiotic diving and theatrics etc..
But for that it needs a chance to grow and fair treatment. Instead of just saying yeah women are just worse so we dont need to bother and its not our fault that we banned them and give them zero room for growth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
