EPTOn June 30 2019 23:15 zev318 wrote:
would you have the same kind of views, to something like, say modelling?
Show nested quote +
On June 30 2019 22:37 sneirac wrote:
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.
On June 30 2019 22:14 evilfatsh1t wrote:
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
On June 30 2019 18:30 sneirac wrote:
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.
On June 30 2019 17:55 evilfatsh1t wrote:
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 16:44 Acrofales wrote:
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 08:19 SK.Testie wrote:
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.
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".
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?
Yes, I 100% have the same views on gender equality on all jobs. However that is mostly idealism that will not happen, so for starters I would settle for what evilfatshit is proposing, actual equality of opportunity instead of just pretending that everything is possible while staunchly defending both past and current sexism
