Feminism and the Likes

[EvilNed]

Hey y'all,

I thought I might as well create a spin-off topic related to feminism rather than bog down the current Ghostbusters thread with it. The purpose of this thread is to educate people on what feminism and equality actually are, rather than what media sometimes percieve them. And also answer questions as to why the "simplest route" might not be the best route. I'll provide a concrete example below.

To put it simply, feminism is the notion that all people are equal. In this particular case, we're talking about sexes but feminism is very often associated with things such as equality for people of different colored skins and ethnic backgrounds. This later point is still of interest in the western world because A) In Europe a right wing wave is one the rise, or perhaps peaking as we speak, where more or less every country has a extreme right, downright racist party in their parliament. The posterboy for these are the British National Party in the UK and Jobbik in Hungary. Note: I am not in any way as well versed in British or Hungarian politics as I am in American politics. Futhermore, I am a US citizen currently living in Sweden which is about as egalitarian as it gets (but still has a long way to go) B) The US is struggling with racism and segregation on a massive scale where black and hispanic people have it a lot worse than white people. This is a direct consequence of the nation's history but also of the very conservative mindset of the American public which, I hate to say it, is stunting their intellectual growth. In my view, the US is among the western countries most in danger of lacking behind significally on the ethical, moral and egalitarian scale because of their unwillingness to adapt to new ideas.

The goal of feminism is to create a society where all people are treated equally. I don't think anyone would argue this point - this is a good idea. The thing is this, we are currently living in very, very sexist societies. Women's rights are under attack in the US, and a great deal of the European countries still view women as "housewifes" rather than potential workforce or members of society. This applies to the US as well - several of my US family members are housewives. The idea of a housewife is nearly non-existant in Sweden - I've met a handfull in my life. Women work and are productive members of society. Men are more likely to take care of kids in Sweden than women (but not AS likely, which is why we need feminism).

The issue goes further than Women's rights. Women are misrepresented in media, politics and sports. These are all male dominated fields. When women are represented in media, their beauty is often highlighted. Some of us may remember the interview leading up to the Avengers movie. All the actors got questions about their character and acting - except Scarlett Johanson, she got questions about her body and staying in shape. This kind of thing goes (http://feminspire.com/actresses-strike-back-against-ridiculous-interview-questions/) on all the time all over. (http://feminspire.com/actresses-strike-back-against-ridiculous-interview-questions/) (< two different links)

You guys get it, right? Women are not equal, because they are not treated equally. They are not allowed the same freedoms or liberties as such. These are not legal but rather societal issues. But the point is, they become legal issues when we need to deal with them... Want to know why? Well, here's why...

Let's say you run a completely free market. Profit, profit, profit for everyone. The only problem here is that the companies are going to ignore certain issues, such as worker safety rules or enviromental issues. That's why we've put restrictions on the free market. Completely free market would ruin the enviroment - much as it has by the way. The only workaround is to apply rules that these companies have to abide by. In the future, maybe we won't need these rules. Maybe in the future the human race will see the long term benefits of not ruining the planet, but since people are fucking idiots that day is not today.

The same applies to equality between sexes. I'll take an example. In Sweden, we used to have maternity leave - just like everyone else does I guess. That is, when a woman becomes a mother she is legally allowed to score some dough and stay home with her new baby to take care of it and nurture it. As a parent should (note: as a PARENT should, not as a MOTHER should...)
This causes problems however - for instance when going to job interviews, women usually get the question "Are you thinking of becoming a mother soon?". The subtext is "Are you planning on becoming a mother - and taking that maternity leave - soon?". Men never get asked this question. Never, ever.
In Sweden, this law is therefore up for debate. Currently, the maternity leave is - if I remember correctly - something along 18 months. A few of these months, lets say 4, are now reserved for the father. That is, the women can only take 14 months off - the other 4 are earmarked for the father. This is a half-assed attempt to create equality. Therefore, the Swedish Feminist Party - and I agree with them here - is to change it so that 9 months are earmarked for the mother and 9 months are earmarked for the father. "But wait!" says liberal parties (our right, by the way, just to show you how far left we are). "The state can't force it's family issues like that - the father and mother should decide together who gets to stay at home!".

And the liberal parties aren't wrong - In an ideal world that's what should happen. The state shouldn't have anything to say about who gets to stay at home with their baby. The key words here are "in an ideal world"...'
As long as we do not keep any restrictions on that, the women are going to keep getting asked "So, planning on having babies soon?" by their bosses or during job interviews. Just like in the free market scenario, we need to put restrictions on this issue to force people to accept a worldview where everyone is equal. Father? Mother? Doesn't matter if I've got a dick or a pussy, I'm obligated to take 9 months out of those maternity leave months. We've just eliminated the need for employers to worry about wether women are going to get kids soon or not - it's suddenly not longer an issue tied to the sex of the person.

In a hundred years, we can hopefully lift that restriction. Then we will have created our utopia, where everyone is equal. But we're far from that point right now. And until then, we will have to keep fighting to allow women to take a bigger part in our society, in all venues. Women need to be represented on the media and taken seriously as actors, not sex objects. Women need to be made politicians. When are we going to have our first female president? And after that first female president, why not elect another one? Does the next one after that have to be a man? We've had men for 250 years now. Our country is built on male ideals. Would two female presidents in a row hurt us? Or three? You get the point.

I've got a book for you guys to read. It's called Egalia's Daughters (http://www.amazon.com/Egalias-Daughters-A-Satire-Sexes/dp/1878067583). It's an old 70's book. It's a fantasy book, set in a modern type world where everything is much as it is today but their society evolved as a matriarchy, not a patriarchy. A real interesting read and a light one at that. But reading it will do good to everyone. It should be required reading in all schools until it is no longer needed.

- - - Updated - - -

In response to MZ's argument about "positive discrimination still being discrimination" (and im keeping it super short, because I already wrote a lengthy response that got deleted):

Equality is the end goal, but we have to use our sense of justice to get there.

Men receive benefits all the time because they're men. To deny women those same benefits and instead call on "fairness" is awfully unfair. Nobody ever makes the same demand whenever a man gets positive treatment for being a man. The problem is that most men either don't recongize that they ge special treatment - or they deny it.

To put it in a picture:

1335

[blind2d]

YES!! So much yes on this. I cannot express how much I agree with all of this. Wish I had more to say, but yes!

[Mike70]

The problems with black people in america has far more to do with their inability to do simple things like graduate from high school. Only 47% of black males graduate from Cincinnati's public school system. It isnt much better in most other cities. That is their problem not anyone else's. To be fair black females do quite well in school and are making educational and income advances every year.

If you fail to graduate from high school, you are doomed.

As for feminisim- I consider myself a feminist and think that in many ways women have more common sense than any 10 guys put together.

[krisvds]

The problems with black people in america has far more to do with their inability to do simple things like graduate from high school. Only 47% of black males graduate from Cincinnati's public school system. It isnt much better in most other cities. That is their problem not anyone else's. To be fair black females do quite well in school and are making educational and income advances every year.

If you fail to graduate from high school, you are doomed.

As for feminisim- I consider myself a feminist and think that in many ways women have more common sense than any 10 guys put together.

Wow. That is an amazingly depressing percentage. Why is it that dramatically low?

In Belgium the problem is even worse: in our universities and high schools ony 10 (10!) % of what is lazily called 'foreigners' (mainly children of third generation immigrants with an African background, so they really should be referred to as Belgians) succeed. I have been teaching for more than sixteen years and witness the problem every day. Context is everything. In our society there is a lot of latent racism. The recent elections saw an uprise in right wing voters. Our current state secretary responsible for refugees and migration is a flemish nationalist who mere days after taking office frequented the birthday party of a 90 year old nazi collaborator and who openly wonders what the economic value of certain nationalities (African as opposed to Asian) is.
Needless to say many of these so called 'foreigners' have a hard time finding a job. Most of their grandparents came to our country to work in the coalmines. They were payed minimum wages and little to no political effort was made to integrate these people in our society. Their children and grandchildren were and are viewed by a large amount of people as second rate citizens. A lot of these people grow up in (relative, but sometimes extreme) poverty. As a teacher I am a first hand witness to how difficult it is for teenagers to take their life into their own hands and build a better future for themselves when they are stuck in this poverty trap. If the place they grow up in is mainly indifferent to their wellbeing and sometimes hostile and plays the 'you should have some personal accountability' card all the time the problem only grows worse. Hence the fact that percentage wise Belgium has one of the highest number of young muslims travelling to Syria to fight a pointless war of any European country.

And there I am teaching ethics and philosophy and introducing young Muslims to the teachings of Darwin and the principle of equality (and feminism) every day. A pointless struggle most of the time I might add.

[shootemindehead]

Men receive benefits all the time because they're men. To deny women those same benefits and instead call on "fairness" is awfully unfair. Nobody ever makes the same demand whenever a man gets positive treatment for being a man. The problem is that most men either don't recongize that they ge special treatment - or they deny it.

Haven't read all the post because frankly "feminism" today means many, many different things to many, many different people.

However, on your point above (and I've heard it before), I would point out that it's SOME men, not all men. There are plenty of men in society that do not recieve "benefits" at all.

I would say that equallity (or lack thereof) goes much, much deeper than the simple man v woman divide.

By far and away the largest "ism" that affects people is classism and that is blind to sex usually.

As for "positive discrimination", I would firmly be in Min's camp. I don't believe ANYONE should get a position because of what's between their legs and I know quite a few feminists who would agree.

[krisvds]

Haven't read all the post because frankly "feminism" today means many, many different things to many, many different people.

However, on your point above (and I've heard it before), I would point out that it's SOME men, not all men. There are plenty of men in society that do not recieve "benefits" at all.

I would say that equallity (or lack thereof) goes much, much deeper than the simple man v woman divide.

By far and away the largest "ism" that affects people is classism and that is blind to sex usually.

As for "positive discrimination", I would firmly be in Min's camp. I don't believe ANYONE should get a position because of what's between their legs and I know quite a few feminists who would agree.


Positive discrimination (sic?) towards women has been put in place simply because in our so called secularised and liberated western society men have been, and still are (recent studies pointed out that Belgian men are still being paid more than women for doing the exact same job) being put in top positions simply because they are men.
The problem with positive discrimination is that it fights the pest with cholera.

[EvilNed]

[/B]

Positive discrimination (sic?) towards women has been put in place simply because in our so called secularised and liberated western society men have been, and still are (recent studies pointed out that Belgian men are still being paid more than women for doing the exact same job) being put in top positions simply because they are men.
The problem with positive discrimination is that it fights the pest with cholera.

You're right. Rejecting positive discrimination for women without acknowledging the bountiful positive discrimination that men receive is ignorance. Even if women are treated well and get ahead, they are still raised in a society were they are sinply deemed a lower class, and it's fully accepted by society,

@shootem I'd say "classism" is a big problem as well, but underneath that umbrella you'll find that men still get treated. Be it wages or representation or just gender bias you will not find a field were women are treated equally as men. Remember, 50% of the population is female and they're all treated as lesser members.

To use a super simple exampld: sports. Sports is male dominated to an almost ridiculous degree. It can be viewed as a microcosm of the rest of our society in that regard.

Currently 20% of politicians in Congress are women. And 0% out of the presidents in the US have been women.

@mike70, thats like saying that it's poor people's fault that they are poor. It's pure, downright bullshit.

[Mike70]

You're right. Rejecting positive discrimination for women without acknowledging the bountiful positive discrimination that men receive is ignorance. Even if women are treated well and get ahead, they are still raised in a society were they are sinply deemed a lower class, and it's fully accepted by society,

@shootem I'd say "classism" is a big problem as well, but underneath that umbrella you'll find that men still get treated. Be it wages or representation or just gender bias you will not find a field were women are treated equally as men. Remember, 50% of the population is female and they're all treated as lesser members.

To use a super simple exampld: sports. Sports is male dominated to an almost ridiculous degree. It can be viewed as a microcosm of the rest of our society in that regard.

Currently 20% of politicians in Congress are women. And 0% out of the presidents in the US have been women.

@mike70, thats like saying that it's poor people's fault that they are poor. It's pure, downright bullshit.
No. It is not. Education is on YOU and your parents. If you cannot summon the interest to complete high school, you have zero chance. Stop being a bleeding heart for two secomds and come back to reality.

[blind2d]

Lemme just jump in here.
I agree that it is up to the individual to apply themselves to academics/doing well in the education system. However! Societal factors can play a role in the behavior of said individual in regards to things such as race, class, and gender. But that does not alleviate the burden of personal effort from the shoulders of the student. So! Points can be made on both sides, and indeed should be. It's just harder for some more than others, but really it should be looked at within the context of the individual in question. And parents definitely play a large role too. Or should. Sometimes they play no role, and that is in itself a role. If you know what I mean.
But it's downright ridiculous that I can't think of one major job market where women are treated equally to or better than men. Like... Seriously, are there any at all?

[shootemindehead]

To use a super simple exampld: sports. Sports is male dominated to an almost ridiculous degree. It can be viewed as a microcosm of the rest of our society in that regard.


Sorry, the sports example is a terrible example though, Ned. Sports is dominated by males, because males are the primary user, viewer and purchaser of sports related products. Plus, male sports are, in the main, the superior product too. Women's football being a superb example.

The simple fact is, men watch and engage in more sports than women do, because they are more interested in sports. One can't get around that and often the male product carries the female product financially.

But, let's have another look at "feminism" (sort of) and sports. In tennis, for decades, there was a debate about women's pay in Grand Slams. Women weren't paid equally to men in prize money for winning a Grand Slam (Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, US Open). Now while, on the surface that looks bad, the reason for it was obvious. Women didn't play as much as men. Women's tennis being the best of three, while men's tennis was the best of five. Over the years, women campaigned for level pay, but not necessarily the same amount of game time as men. They won in the end and received the same prize money as the men (the last tournament to comply being Wimbledon), but STILL only have to play the best of three, while men have to STILL play the best of five.

Now, any way that that's cut, it still comes out as wrong in my eyes and is a prime example of a failure of positive discrimination.

- - - Updated - - -


But it's downright ridiculous that I can't think of one major job market where women are treated equally to or better than men. Like... Seriously, are there any at all?

Teaching. Nursing.

[EvilNed]

Sorry, the sports example is a terrible example though, Ned. Sports is dominated by males, because males are the primary user, viewer and purchaser of sports related products. Plus, male sports are, in the main, the superior product too. Women's football being a superb example.

The simple fact is, men watch and engage in more sports than women do, because they are more interested in sports. One can't get around that and often the male product carries the female product financially.


Male are more interested in sports because society teaches them too. We praise males for their athletic skill and women for their beauty. Males get scholarships for performing well in football. Women get scholarships for beauty pageants. Your criticism of the Sports example just shows how much more fucked up society is. We systematicaly indoctrinate our sexes to be interested in different things and it's all pretty fucking obvious to me.

Your comment about male dominated sports being the superior product is a sexist one, and as I've said I equate that to racism.


Teaching. Nursing.

Even further issues. These two occupations are often criticized for being lower paid. And they are lower paid because they're female dominated. That's a worldwide issue, by the way.



No. It is not. Education is on YOU and your parents. If you cannot summon the interest to complete high school, you have zero chance. Stop being a bleeding heart for two secomds and come back to reality.

First off, kids are idiots. They're never going to make the right choices.
Second off, why do you think kids are idiots? Because their parents are idiots.
Why are their parents idiots? Because society doesn't give a shit about them.

There's black communities out there where only 2% of the elligible voters turn out to vote. They don't believe in the system. Can you blame them, when society keeps treating them like shit?

You're not wrong in that it's a personal issue, but you can't deny that it goes much deeper than that.

I attached another snassy comic that breaks down the problem Mike. It's very simple, but it strikes at the core of the issue: Whites are way better off than blacks in the US, and it's not "their own fault"... It's ours.

http://everydayfeminism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/A-Concise-History-Of-Black-White-Relations-In-The-United-States.png

[blind2d]

Nice comic! And teachers and nurses definitely need to be paid more. My dad's a special ed elementary school teacher, and I bet you that the major reason my step-mom earns more than him is because she has a job with the DoD. And still we can't afford to move into a nicer place or anything like that. But enough about me. Racism and sexism definitely have a lot of similarities, and classism cannot be ignored either. I'm really glad we're having this discussion here. It's a nice break from all the zombie. Not that I mind zombie. I love zombie. Y'all know what it is.

[shootemindehead]

Male are more interested in sports because society teaches them too. We praise males for their athletic skill and women for their beauty. Males get scholarships for performing well in football. Women get scholarships for beauty pageants. Your criticism of the Sports example just shows how much more fucked up society is. We systematicaly indoctrinate our sexes to be interested in different things and it's all pretty fucking obvious to me.

Your comment about male dominated sports being the superior product is a sexist one, and as I've said I equate that to racism.

No, it's not a "sexist" one Ned. It's a true one. A case in point being womens football vs mens football, where to ANY honest observer, the male product is the far superior item. Womens football simply cannot compete with it on any level. In the main, the male sports product is the superior one as it stands presently and is, all too often carried by the male product fancially, as is amply shown by the current state of tennis. Again, this may change. but currently it's the facts.

I also reject your own limited stereotyping regarding society and its attitude to male and female involvement in sports. There are plenty of outlets available for women to get involved in sporting activities in society, right up to professional level. The simple fact, though, is that men are just more interested in sports, regardless of encouragement.

And no flick of the wrist "ism" slur can alter that.

As for "scholarships for performing well in football" or "beauty pageants", that's an American societial issue. As far as I'm aware, such a thing doesn't exist within mine, or Britain's, or, I'll wager, most of Europe.


Even further issues. These two occupations are often criticized for being lower paid. And they are lower paid because they're female dominated. That's a worldwide issue, by the way.

No, they're lower paid because there is and has been for some time a concerted effort to devalue labour among a large range of professional and non-professional positions, not because they are female dominated. In my own country, teaching (mainly primary) and nursing were, effectively, closed shops. If you were a man trying to get into these professions, you had a very difficult time and it remains that way today.

[EvilNed]

You're confusing fact with opinion regarding sports. Your opinion on the matter is that male sports is better, and this deserves to be highlighted. The truth is more likely the opposite: Male sports are highlighted to the extreme and therefore more money goes into it, and therefore you perceive it as better. This is the society you live in, wether you like it or not. As I've already pointed out, male skillness is valued. Female beauty is valued.

Also, even British society encourages women to be beautiful and men to be skillfull. Or do women in britain not wear makeup? The college / beauty pageant comparison is extreme and american, but similar examples exist within british or swedish culture. Sports being a very clear indication. What you're saying about how male sports are better than female and then calling it a fact is such a red sexist alarm bell going off and proves so many of my points. Had female sports been given the same room, money and coverage as male sports you would find no difference between them. You see the effect as the cause, when in fact it's the other way around. People didnt decide to favour male sporting because it was better - they decided to favour it because women sporting was non-exist and now a hundred years later here we are. It wasn't that long ago women werent even allowed to participate in marathons...

Also, teaching and nursing are generally female dominated fields of work. They are generally lower paid fields of work. Connect the dots.

[blind2d]

And what's this crap about it being harder for a man to become a teacher than a woman? Maybe decades ago, but in America at least I don't think that's any longer the case. So... Yeah. Go research Wilma Rudolph and tell me women aren't as good at sports as men.

[krisvds]

Most schools I know of are actively searching for male teachers. To the point they are positively discriminating male candidates who apply for a job.
And yes, that has a lot to do with lower wages and the general stereotype that 'teaching is for women' or 'you can't be ambitious and promote your way to the top in a school'.
I saw many of my colleagues (both male and female) leave their teaching jobs for higher salaries in the private sector. Their main motivation though was the often Kafka-like administrative work we have to do coupled with continuously dwindling financial investments in our sector. Teaching to, sometimes over thirty young teenagers per class is rapidly becoming the norm in Belgium.

[shootemindehead]

You're confusing fact with opinion regarding sports. Your opinion on the matter is that male sports is better, and this deserves to be highlighted. The truth is more likely the opposite:

You obviously haven't watched much women's football. It simply isn't better in any area. That is a fact, not merely opinion.

Besides, we're getting well off the point here. My original point was that sports is "male dominated" (your words) is because males are the primary user, viewer and purchaser of sports related products. You cannot get away from that.

A lot of the women just aren't interested, out of THEIR OWN DECISION. There is NOTHING stopping women from being either involved or from watching any sport. They have to have the interest first and I've met plenty of women who have and do watch football, for example.


Male sports are highlighted to the extreme and therefore more money goes into it, and therefore you perceive it as better. This is the society you live in, wether you like it or not. As I've already pointed out, male skillness is valued. Female beauty is valued.

Male sports are highlighted because, in general, it's males that are interested in sports, therefore that is where the money is going to go, whether YOU like it or not.

I don't disagree that society (which is made up of BOTH men and women) places different values on the sexes. But that goes both ways. Both sexes place different expectations upon either one. But, again, there is absolutely bugger all stopping women for watching or being interested in sport. Nothing at all.


Also, even British society encourages women to be beautiful and men to be skillfull. Or do women in britain not wear makeup?

You missed the point spectacularly. Your scholarship example applies to American society. They just don't apply elsewhere. That's An American societal issue. Nobody in my country or elsewhere in Europe (as far as I'm aware) ever got to college for winning a beauty pageant. Also, I've mentioned nothing about makeup, that doesn't even apply to my points.


What you're saying about how male sports are better than female and then calling it a fact is such a red sexist alarm bell going off and proves so many of my points.

It doesn't prove shit, because you haven't understood what I have said.

I said male sports is the superior product, because males are simple more interested in sports, in general. If the interest isn't there, it's not going to be that widespread is it.

It's that simple.


Had female sports been given the same room, money and coverage as male sports you would find no difference between them.

You see, tennis proves you wrong here. Women's tennis has been around for years, almost as long as the men's game. But the men's game still carries the women's game financially because that is where the interest lay and people (mostly males) pay the lions share to watch it, because their interest is greater.

There has been PLENTY of money pumped into women's tennis over the years, but still it has to be propped up by revenue from the male game.

I like women's tennis. I prefer the speed at which it's played at, TBPH. But that won't eliminate the fact that it's in the men's game where the most interest lies, because in general it's men who are interested in sports.


Also, teaching and nursing are generally female dominated fields of work. They are generally lower paid fields of work. Connect the dots.

That doesn't exclude my point about it being harder for males to get into, in my country at least.

[EvilNed]

You obviously haven't watched much women's football. It simply isn't better in any area. That is a fact, not merely opinion.

Besides, we're getting well off the point here. My original point was that sports is "male dominated" (your words) is because males are the primary user, viewer and purchaser of sports related products. You cannot get away from that.

A lot of the women just aren't interested, out of THEIR OWN DECISION. There is NOTHING stopping women from being either involved or from watching any sport. They have to have the interest first and I've met plenty of women who have and do watch football, for example.

You may repeat this point as many times as you want, but I cannot argue with someone who confuses fact with opinion. You need to learn the difference if this conversation is to continue. I also adressed the inherent sexism to sports in my last posts and why we breed male to get interested in skill orientated things and women are praised and valued for their beauty. Sports is an extreme example, where the male field is heavily highlighted and the female is downplayed. It's easy to see why, and I already explained why: A hundred years ago males were playing sports and women were not. We've still got one foot stuck in that mud pit of sexism.

Your opinion of the matter may be that male sports is better, but that does not make it a fact. In fact, it's quite ridiculous to state anything else. Anyway, we've exhausted the point and I can tell that you're a pretty sexist fellah all around so I'm not going to indulge you further. Rest assured that there is a difference between fact and opinion and you've clearly demonstrated that you either do not know the difference or refuse to acknowledge it.

A fact is something that's proven by scientific method, such as

A football is of spherical shape and made of leather.

The above is a fact.

An opinion is something like this:

I find male football to be superior to female football.

Learn the difference, and we can talk.



You missed the point spectacularly. Your scholarship example applies to American society. They just don't apply elsewhere. That's An American societal issue. Nobody in my country or elsewhere in Europe (as far as I'm aware) ever got to college for winning a beauty pageant. Also, I've mentioned nothing about makeup, that doesn't even apply to my points.

Okay, another example. Acting. Most male actors are praised for their acting skill, whereas most female actors are praised for their beauty. I raised this in the first post as well. I can go on and on if you wish, there's plenty more examples out there. Makeup is just an example of women having to make themselves "Pretty to look at" before going to work.


It doesn't prove shit, because you haven't understood what I have said.

I said male sports is the superior product, because males are simple more interested in sports, in general. If the interest isn't there, it's not going to be that widespread is it.

It's that simple.

I've explained to you the underlying history and reasons for why male sports is held in higher regard, so no it just isn't "that simple".



You see, tennis proves you wrong here. Women's tennis has been around for years, almost as long as the men's game. But the men's game still carries the women's game financially because that is where the interest lay and people (mostly males) pay the lions share to watch it, because their interest is greater.

And again, I've explained why sports are male dominated. But heck, why not look at another point here...

Roger Federer, arguably the best male tennis player ever... Net worth of 300 million. (http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-athletes/richest-tennis/roger-federer-net-worth/)
Steffi Graf, arguably the best female tennis player ever. Net worth of 30 million. (http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-athletes/richest-tennis/steffi-graf-net-worth/)

Huh, look at that. Not even in tennis is the pay equal. Who would have thought.




That doesn't exclude my point about it being harder for males to get into, in my country at least.

I fail to see the point you're trying to make here.

[shootemindehead]

...if this conversation is to continue.

This conversation isn't going to continue. Because you don't understand the issues I'm raising.


Roger Federer, arguably the best male tennis player ever... Net worth of 300 million.
Steffi Graf, arguably the best female tennis player ever. Net worth of 30 million.

The above is a perfect example.

Steffi Graf retired 15 years ago. Roger Federer is still playing at a professional level. The pair pf them don't even belong in the point.

[blind2d]

If Ned doesn't understand, then you must not be explaining your position very well.

You said that one kind of sport is better than another. How can you possibly justify this statement? What are your qualifications for how 'good' a sport is? Your personal enjoyment of it? That's an opinion. How much money it makes? That's a shallow economic reflection. How popular it is in the general public? That's due largely to media and humans being socially primitive (sheep mentality). So, very silly sentence there, sorry. And can we stop talking tennis? It's the 21st century. Who cares?

[shootemindehead]

No, I'm not really interested in where it's going, to be honest Blind and I think I've been very clear thus far.

I've already been, effectively, called a "sexist" and had an inference of "racism" too and that's not really what I'm here for.

It's obviously a touchy subject for Ned and that's fair enough, but if one can't or won't understand the points that somebody is making and consigns them to simply "your opinion", then there's not really much to talk about and having followed both football and tennis for more years than I like, I think I know what I am talking about in that regard in terms of the quality of the product.

That's not to say that I think men are the "better" sex, or whatever.

While I think that Feminism has won its major battles (at least in the west), there are still areas of imporovement needed, but that goes for both sexes, frankly (men experience sexism too, try family law for example). It certainly isn't a one way street.

[krisvds]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd4sjkPBIC4

[EvilNed]

1) your opinion of a matter, regardless of your experience in said field, is still an opinion. You've been adamant that male football is superior to female football. Since you failed to present any scientific facts to back that statement up, it cannot be tested or argued with. It's simply a claim and nothing more.

2) sexism riles me up. Does not racism rile you up?

3) lets take an irish example of lacking in women's rights... Abortion. It's illegal. Or women in the parliament. Out of 166 seats, 25 are occupied by women. Doesnt strike me as very equal or even close to it.

Sexism not being a one-way street? That's such an absurd comment when comparing the sexes. Maybe it isn't but there's fifty lanes going one way and one lane going the other, so why even bother raising the point?

[blind2d]

1) your opinion of a matter, regardless of your experience in said field, is still an opinion. You've been adamant that male football is superior to female football. Since you failed to present any scientific facts to back that statement up, it cannot be tested or argued with. It's simply a claim and nothing more.

2) sexism riles me up. Does not racism rile you up?

3) lets take an irish example of lacking in women's rights... Abortion. It's illegal. Or women in the parliament. Out of 166 seats, 25 are occupied by women. Doesnt strike me as very equal or even close to it.

Sexism not being a one-way street? That's such an absurd comment when comparing the sexes. Maybe it isn't but there's fifty lanes going one way and one lane going the other, so why even bother raising the point?

ALL of this, pretty much, I think. Wait... Yes, all of it.

I mean yes, the custody and alimony stuff usually does favor the wife over the husband, but honestly, I don't think that's a big deal, really. Unless the wife is a reprehensible human, and the husband's better parenting material. Which is why we have courts; to take issues like this in a case-by-case basis. Right?

Anyway, yeah, I don't get how sports can be 'better' still... *furrows brow in confusion*

[shootemindehead]

1339

/\

Is this you Ned?

[EvilNed]

No, weed gets me paranoid. I'm more of an E fan.

- - - Updated - - -


ALL of this, pretty much, I think. Wait... Yes, all of it.

I mean yes, the custody and alimony stuff usually does favor the wife over the husband, but honestly, I don't think that's a big deal, really. Unless the wife is a reprehensible human, and the husband's better parenting material. Which is why we have courts; to take issues like this in a case-by-case basis

Correct, but even there we have lots of work to do. Many cases of rape are thrown out for instance.

[blind2d]

Right, and that grinds my buckin' gears. I think rape is worse than murder. Maybe not by much, but yeah. It's a form of physical and psychological torture. Like, seriously messed up.

[Publius]

A fact is something that's proven by scientific method, such as

A football is of spherical shape and made of leather.

The above is a fact.

An opinion is something like this:

I find male football to be superior to female football.

Learn the difference, and we can talk.

Right, then. Let's talk about facts and logic.

1. In any sport, the objective is to win.
2. Given that the objective is to win, players with the greatest ability to win receive the most attention, and are objectively superior to players less capable of winning.
3. In most sports, top-rated male players can wipe the floor with top-rated female players.
4. Therefore, male players are superior in most sports.

It should be blindingly obvious what the scientific basis for this is. Men generally have higher testosterone levels and more muscle mass than women, and these provide a significant competitive advantage in most competitive sports. There are exceptions (men who have less muscle mass than some women), but these are not professional athletes.

Note also that I said "most sports." There surely are sports where women can compete on an equal basis with men. Off the top of my head, I would guess that these might include motor sports, shooting sports, and horseback riding. In the absence of sexism or cultural/historical factors, I would expect the top female players and top male players in such sports to be compensated equally. But these don't include most of the sports with the most fans (and paying audiences).

[EvilNed]

Your points are correct, but that does not inherently make male sporting better in any way except for popular opinion.
For instance, one might also argue that the point of sports is also to entertain the viewer, in which case I personally would rather enjoy a match between two teams who are of equal skill. In that case, which sport is better? Male or female? Suddenly, sex does not matter.

[Publius]

For instance, one might also argue that the point of sports is also to entertain the viewer, in which case I personally would rather enjoy a match between two teams who are of equal skill. In that case, which sport is better? Male or female? Suddenly, sex does not matter.
Quite right, the point of spectator sports, for the spectator, is entertainment. Watching teams of equal skill compete is desirable, then, because it makes for a more entertaining match. Blowouts get boring. But is that all that matters? Let's take sex out of the picture and consider a specific example: baseball.

If watching two teams of equal skill were all that mattered, fans would have no preference between major league games and minor league games, or between minor league games and little league games for that matter. All they would care about is the two teams being on the same level. But we know that's not true. Major league games can charge much higher ticket prices, and still attract massively larger audiences. Even within the major leagues, games between evenly-matched teams considered strong will attract more viewers than games between evenly-matched teams considered weak. Clearly, fans care not only about watching evenly-matched teams compete, they also care a great deal about seeing high levels of performance. Major league teams perform at the highest level and therefore attract the most fans.

Applying the same principles, we can easily understand why, for example, NBA (National Basketball Association) players would earn more than WNBA (Women's National Basketball Association) players, without any need to look to sexism as a factor.

[blind2d]

Nope. I'm sorry Publius, I just can't agree on that score. If one keeps a childlike mentality about the viewing of sports, anything can be entertaining and exciting. I should probably amend that. If one keeps an OPEN MIND about sports, then NBA and WNBA matches could conceivably be entertaining, because you would realize that the athletes are trying their darnedest, and it's a joy to watch the human form in motion. They are professionals. They put in the same time, they put in the same effort, they should get paid the same. The problem is exposure, which is not the fault of the athletes but of the managers, and the marketing people, media moguls, etc. Most of these people are male, and have a vested interest in keeping male sports far more available to the public. It's a patriarchy, people. Still, yeah, even in this day and age. I know, right? I'd rather watch women play basketball professionally than men, but that's just me. And baseball is boring. No matter who's playing.

[Publius]

Nope. I'm sorry Publius, I just can't agree on that score. If one keeps a childlike mentality about the viewing of sports, anything can be entertaining and exciting. I should probably amend that. If one keeps an OPEN MIND about sports, then NBA and WNBA matches could conceivably be entertaining, because you would realize that the athletes are trying their darnedest, and it's a joy to watch the human form in motion. They are professionals. They put in the same time, they put in the same effort, they should get paid the same. The problem is exposure, which is not the fault of the athletes but of the managers, and the marketing people, media moguls, etc. Most of these people are male, and have a vested interest in keeping male sports far more available to the public. It's a patriarchy, people. Still, yeah, even in this day and age. I know, right? I'd rather watch women play basketball professionally than men, but that's just me. And baseball is boring. No matter who's playing.
That's opinion, not fact, right? ;) Anyways, good luck getting the entire world of sports fans to think like you rather than how they do now, but I'm pretty skeptical that you'll have much luck.

[EvilNed]

Except, for the fact, that male sports is actively promoted and has been throughout our history until just recently. There's much more around that weighs in besides skill. We are living in a patriarchy.

Also, the thing about changing people's minds? We're constantly trying to shape and evolve a better society for ourselves and our children. We're actively campaigning and deriding racism, so why not this?

[Publius]

Except, for the fact, that male sports is actively promoted and has been throughout our history until just recently. There's much more around that weighs in besides skill. We are living in a patriarchy.

As I have demonstrated, the fact that people prefer to watch athletes who excel over athletes who do not has nothing to do with the patriarchy. The principle applies just the same *within* male-only sports (e.g. major leagues v. minor leagues, as discussed above). The fact that female athletes simply perform at a lower level makes it reasonable to expect that, in general, people will continue to pay less attention to women's sports, even positing a complete eradication of patriarchy and sexism from society. It's simply not realistic to expect sports fans to stop caring about level of athletic performance while continuing to be sports fans, any more than it would be realistic to expect American Idol or Eurovision to stop looking for the best performers and just declare that everyone who tried really hard was a winner.

[blind2d]

Herein lies the problem. If we viewed sports more as art, we'd be able to appreciate those who perform differently from others, rather than having this set expectation that being good at sports looks like 'THIS' rather than 'ThiS'. You see? Take skateboarding for example. No two people skate the same. Lincoln Ueda is not Tony Hawk, nor is Mimi Knoop, but all three skate ramps in an impressive unique way. None of them are "winning" skateboarding (unless you count taking advantage of the system and making way too much money off it, a la the Birdman, but he gives back, so it's all good), and yet they are all skateboarders. If only other sports were so liberating and artistic. Sadly this is not the case, as the general structure of team sports is rigid and fixed (double meaning?). Anyhowitzer, men invented the sports they're "best" at, I notice... What a surprise.

[EvilNed]

As I have demonstrated, the fact that people prefer to watch athletes who excel over athletes who do not has nothing to do with the patriarchy. The principle applies just the same *within* male-only sports (e.g. major leagues v. minor leagues, as discussed above). The fact that female athletes simply perform at a lower level makes it reasonable to expect that, in general, people will continue to pay less attention to women's sports, even positing a complete eradication of patriarchy and sexism from society. It's simply not realistic to expect sports fans to stop caring about level of athletic performance while continuing to be sports fans, any more than it would be realistic to expect American Idol or Eurovision to stop looking for the best performers and just declare that everyone who tried really hard was a winner.

Do you also then believe that there is no corelation between the number of women in congress and the skill of women as politicans?

It's silly to ignore the history of sports. There's a reason why things are the way they are, and history clearly shows and women have not, and still do not, get the same rights and priviledges as man.

[LivingDeadGuy]

I think the problem with people's views on feminism is that they think feminism is all about being a mean-spirited woman who hates all men. Some feminist obviously do hate men because they have had to put up with male oppression but that doesn't mean that it's all about man-hating. I actually know a girl who hates the term feminist because she links it to man-hating and she doesn't want to be thought of as man-hater because she knows that not all men are bad.

I think it should simply be called "equality" and just wanting the same fair treatment for everybody. I mean really what is so wrong with that?

And I agree that women seem to be under attack nowadays for wanting equal rights it's not like it was in the 90's when an ambitious woman who wanted more out of her life was actually admired for doing so. Boy times have changed...

[EvilNed]

I think it should simply be called "equality" and just wanting the same fair treatment for everybody. I mean really what is so wrong with that?


There's no problem with it, but there are a lot of words with the word "man" in it that are never questioned. So why question Feminism?
I agree feminism could and maybe should be changed to "equality". But if so, then we should give "equal" treatment to the entire vernacular of the english language and include words such as Mankind in there as well. Maybe call us something else... Terrestial Cognitive Bipeds?

[LivingDeadGuy]

There's no problem with it, but there are a lot of words with the word "man" in it that are never questioned. So why question Feminism?
I agree feminism could and maybe should be changed to "equality". But if so, then we should give "equal" treatment to the entire vernacular of the english language and include words such as Mankind in there as well. Maybe call us something else... Terrestial Cognitive Bipeds?

Or maybe just call us "people"? It's more simple but it gets the point across that we all are basically the same when it comes to are needs as human beings. Plus I'm really not too crazy about labels because every label carries limits and they shouldn't be allowed to define who we are as a person.

[EvilNed]

Or maybe just call us "people"? It's more simple but it gets the point across that we all are basically the same when it comes to are needs as human beings. Plus I'm really not too crazy about labels because every label carries limits and they shouldn't be allowed to define who we are as a person.

I'm all for that, if we're gonna go down the "rewrite the language"-road.