Feminism...

Collin · August 2008

catefrances wrote:

what kind of dumbarse palce makes a special rule for it actually to be legal for women to walk around topless? who passed this rule?

North America?

mechanics fix cars. male or female. id like to be able to fix a major problem with some type of machinery, but ive learnt that there are people who are more disposed to such activity than i am. i dont find it empowering to be able to fix machinery. i find it more empowering that i can admit i have a deficiency in this field and need to seek out professional help to fix the problem.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. It's a job. Not a battle between men and women.

OutOfBreath · August 2008

Collin wrote:

I am interested and I'm certainly capable of understanding. But I don't understand certain things. I don't understand how you can fight for a world in which women can be car mechanics. That world exists, you live in it.

I don't understand feminists who bitch about equal pay and then demand that female tennis players should get the same as their male colleagues.

I don't understand why feminists support unfair programmes like Title IX. I don't understand how other feminists claim it doesn't have to be unfair yet they don't do anything about it. I mean if you're pushing for something like this to create justice and you know it's currently unjust, do something about it!

And you can tell me the history of feminism. You can explain to me problems women face today... I'll understand them and chances are I'll already know about them...

But these are issues I don't understand. But they're dismissed as obscure examples.

I also think some feminists simply can't accept the fact that life is unfair. It's unfair whether you are a man or a woman, black or white. Yes, sometimes a man will get a job that should have gone to the female candidate because she was more competent but I wouldn't automatically call that sexism. This happens all the time to women and men. And I can think of many little examples like that...

I think you are using feminism too sweepingly, and expect it to be a uniform movement. It isn't. Sure, there are overkill PC-feminists, and there probably exists real lesbian man-haters. But they aren't very representative for everyone that finds it appropriate to label themselves feminists. The term to many doesnt mean much beyond end to patriarchal discrimination, equal opportunities, and some preference in certain positions in society in order to speed up the process of equality. To show an inkling of the specter we're talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#Movements_and_ideologies
(Yes, many of them have been and are intellectuals with that knack for sub-division)

As for there not being a need for feminism anymore, well that's one to argue about. But I'll say just because we in some select countries in the world are making progress on it, doesn't mean that it's over. We are getting there, but we aren't there.

That said, you have my full support for disliking those who are just female chauvinists instead of male chauvinists.

Peace
Dan

Collin · August 2008

decides2dream wrote:

it is a fight from within AND from the outside as well. truly, i would think most would understand that. the ideas begin within, and collectively as many believe and agree on these ideas...they begin to process and work towards the change on the outside. if people/women didn't...the right to vote, the right to make your own choices, the right to make decisions for your own body, etc...never would've happened.

Of course certain things need to be changed on the outside but if you don't change on the inside you'll be a victim for the rest of your life. The ground work is done in the US. The basics are there. That there are more male car mechanics is not an issue. If you want to be one, become one. The possibilty is there.

and hello...yes, a good part of it IS about 'changing people's minds'...their perceptions....etc. all the work for equality, not just for women, but equality and anti-discrimination in general, ALL about changing people's peceptions.

Hello

I think one of the best ways to change people's perceptions is to prove their perceptions wrong. Like I said, my girlfriend took car mechanics classes. Many guys laughed but she proved them all wrong.

The opportunity already exists. Take it if you want it. That's all I'm saying. And if you can't do it, there's no shame in that. There are many things most women will not be able to do and there are many things men are will not be able to do.

again, it is and it isn't. no one chooses to be a victim, but sometimes there ARe victims, and certainly not b/c they chose it, but simply b/c they are. i DO understand your point, and overall i do agree with the 'not letting yourself being a victim mentality'...but i ALSO know sometimes there is no choice in it.

I know a guy who lost a leg (he's 22). It was not his fault. He never said a word to the person that caused it again (which is quite understandable if you know the whole situation), but he was never a victim. He was positive from day one. He said I'm alive, I love life, that is what matters. His girlfriend dumped him because he lost his leg. He said fuck her. I deserve better than that. He is strong though he has plenty of reasons to be a victim.

You can be a victim but in the end it comes down to you. I think this is generally true. The examples I can think of in which this becomes extremely hard are rare and very extreme in nature.

as of right now in the US, many, many health plans do NOT cover the cost of BC pills, yet cover the cost of viagra. this leaves many women in a difficult situation b/c for many, BC pills are the best option for their reproductive control, yet can be prohibitvely expensive to buy monthly w/o a prescription plan that covers a good portion of the cost. many, many feminists agree this is an important issue and are fighting to get HMOs to cover BC pills in ther prescription plans.

perhaps about a year ago, i think, there was talk of health insurance companies not covering overnight hospital stays for women who just underwent mastectomies. there was a petition drive and awareness campaign to pressure health insurance companies to cover at least a 2 day hospital stay, as on average, is recommended by doctors.

these are just 2 examples off the top of my head, both of a medical nature, and yet still definitely 'women's issues'...and thus of great interest to many feminists. these are just 2 of many ideas that women work towards changing/securing, for all women. it's great to say change comes from within, obstacles overcome from within...a fight from within. on many levels, you're right...it IS. but on important legislative/health issues, it's a fight for larger society and it can and should be dealt with on a large-scale level. a woman just undergoing a mastectomy, a difficult obstacle to overcome as it is, should not feel she has to battle her HMO alone to get the proper care she deserves, that doctors recommend, etc. same thing with BC. many, many groups/individuals fight to reverse roe vs. wade, to chip away at women's access and choices for BC in general, etc. one can try to alter public perception of such, one can work to ensure access for all women, etc. it is not simply an individual battle, or it shouldn't be imo anyway. thus why feminism as an ideal is still quite relevant and necessary.

[/quote]

The pill is pratically free here. I think you pay three euro for three months. You can get cheaper and more expensive 'the' pills as well. Of course, I don't live in a religious country and I live in a country with a great health care system.

I agree with these issues. But the nature of these problems if different than the nature of former issues, like the right to vote...

You have a fucked up system where profit goes before people, where money rules. I bet these aren't the only problems within the system... I believe these issues are worth fighting for... but I have a hard time believing the system is only unfair towards women. The shift has gone from unfairness and inequality towards women to problems women face in general.

I think it's great you fight these things and I'm definitely on your side. These are women's issues, but I think there are men's issues like that too. I think this is an example of an equal society in which there are disadvantages, injustices... towards women and men. I support all the people who fight these things.

There are stil other methods of birth control available. Men don't even have a equivalent to the pill. It's an important fight, I won't deny that, but the nature of this fight is different, in my opinion.

I believe I said this earlier; life is not fair. It's not fair for women and it's not fair for men. I think these cases are examples of an injustice that affects women, not against women. I think it's great women are fighting for this...

I hope this makes sense...

Collin · August 2008

OutOfBreath wrote:

I think you are using feminism too sweepingly, and expect it to be a uniform movement. It isn't. Sure, there are overkill PC-feminists, and there probably exists real lesbian man-haters. But they aren't very representative for everyone that finds it appropriate to label themselves feminists. The term to many doesnt mean much beyond end to patriarchal discrimination, equal opportunities, and some preference in certain positions in society in order to speed up the process of equality. To show an inkling of the specter we're talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#Movements_and_ideologies
(Yes, many of them have been and are intellectuals with that knack for sub-division)

As for there not being a need for feminism anymore, well that's one to argue about. But I'll say just because we in some select countries in the world are making progress on it, doesn't mean that it's over. We are getting there, but we aren't there.

That said, you have my full support for disliking those who are just female chauvinists instead of male chauvinists.

Peace
Dan

I am well aware of the diversity of feminism and feminist philosophies. I have read the wikipedia entries on feminism, feminist branches a long time ago.

I believe I've made it quite clear in this thread I can distinguish between the different types of feminism and feminists.

I am also aware of the many different churches christianity has. There is for instance the Westboro baptist church. Not many other christian churches agree with their views and I know this because I've seen great criticism from these other churches. When we have a discussion about religion on this board all the christians criticise them for hijacking, distorting and abusing their religion.

I see many cases of injustice created by feminism. I see very little criticism. It's as simple as that. All I want to know from feminists is do you support these actions or not. If not, why is their so little criticism? It's almost ignored.

Again, I'll use an "obscure" example. The female tennis players. Feminists finally got their will and now female tennis players earn as much (at some tournaments) as male tennis players, though they obviously play less.

This seems contradictory to what feminism is about. All I'm interested is; do you support this and why? If not, why is no one speaking up against these feminists?

As for feminism not being needed; I already addressed that.

_ · August 2008

Collin wrote:

The shift has gone from unfairness and inequality towards women to problems women face in general.

Yes, to a great extent it has. (Sound like maybe you're starting to get it.) Feminism, for instance, is concerned with STIs, which - although they affect men too - have a disproportionately negative effect on women. No one is crying that life is unfair and women are being treated injustly by men. (That's only a small part of what feminism is about.) But it is one of the issues because it's a women's issue.

Are you suggesting that you have a problem with this shift? (I ask because you seemed to say it as an argument against her argument about the pill.)

decides2dream · August 2008

as with many of these issues - and thus why initially i avoided this topic

- it becomes an 'arguemnt' of semantics. obviously, living in the US is different from living in beligium in many ways...and perceptions, and access, very diffierent. i am not concerned about a guy taking ballet or a girl learning mechanics, as long as the chance and access to do such Is open to all genders sans discrimination. what i am most concerned with is legislation that protects women's rights, their personal freedoms, and most especially on the reproductive front. yes, the issues of feminism have changed greatly over the years...and rightly so. when feminism first came into being, it was a total clean slate and sooo much to be done b/c women had basically next to no rights. now, thankfully, we DO have many rights...and thus take the time to focus more specifically on issues pertinent today. btw - i do not, nor have i ever considered myself, or other women, 'victims'...purely b/c we are women. i am quite happy to be a woman.

however, if i were alive 100-150 years ago, i wonder if i would think/feel the same.

anyhoo, dan/outofbreath summed it all up pretty nicely for me.

my main issue and the only reason i joined this convo was an earlier post of corporate whores.

and i DO feel quite strongly about it still. control over one's reproduction, especially as a woman, is such an important issue to me, and i think it of paramount importance to maintain and improve women's access and freedoms of choice in that arena.

all else, we can talk round and round...all just opinions, semantics, etc. which is all well and good...just not something i am all that interested in discussing.

as to your 'beef's with feminism, if it really bothers YOU, why don't you work against it instead of expecting others to? i do not agree with many of the issues put forth by feminists, such as affirmative action...however, it is not that important to me. i said earlier, i rather work towards things i desire rather than against things i am not interested in. reverse discrimination is not a wise course of action either. there are many, many injustices in this world that i do not actively protest, i only have so much time/energy....so i work towards what i deem important. we are all free to do the same. i really don't understnd why you expect feminists to fight against other feminists for such things. i will focus on the feminist issues of importance to me, i leave it to others to focus on what's important to them.

Collin wrote:

There are stil other methods of birth control available. Men don't even have a equivalent to the pill. It's an important fight, I won't deny that, but the nature of this fight is different, in my opinion.

I believe I said this earlier; life is not fair. It's not fair for women and it's not fair for men. I think these cases are examples of an injustice that affects women, not against women. I think it's great women are fighting for this...

I hope this makes sense...

yes, i know...but in MY opinion this IS an important issue to ME...something i think is an injustice, and thus why i fight and support for such things. life isn't fair, i am not expecting it to be. however, where there is legislation or where there should be, i will do my best to secure the rights of women and their/my interests...and support those who work towards the same.

and it does make sense, we simply see the issues differently.

of COURSe the nature of this 'fight' is different...they ALL are, but it does not diminish the importance of such a fight, at least to me. we all pick and choose our battles and causes that are important to us as inidividuals.

enjoy your arguement.

_ · August 2008

Collin wrote:

I am well aware of the diversity of feminism and feminist philosophies. I have read the wikipedia entries on feminism, feminist branches a long time ago.

I believe I've made it quite clear in this thread I can distinguish between the different types of feminism and feminists.

This hasn't been made clear to me at all.

Collin wrote:

I am also aware of the many different churches christianity has. There is for instance the Westboro baptist church. Not many other christian churches agree with their views and I know this because I've seen great criticism from these other churches. When we have a discussion about religion on this board all the christians criticise them for hijacking, distorting and abusing their religion.

I see many cases of injustice created by feminism. I see very little criticism. It's as simple as that. All I want to know from feminists is do you support these actions or not. If not, why is their so little criticism? It's almost ignored.

Again, I'll use an "obscure" example. The female tennis players. Feminists finally got their will and now female tennis players earn as much (at some tournaments) as male tennis players, though they obviously play less.

This seems contradictory to what feminism is about. All I'm interested is; do you support this and why? If not, why is no one speaking up against these feminists?

I don't know what you're talking about. I don't know the first thing about tennis, players' pay rates, or why some people think women & men should be paid equally and others do not. I'm not going to speak up for or against something I know nothing about.

You could tell me your side of the story, but that would still only be one side so I still couldn't judge. If this were actually some big, representative feminist cause, maybe I'd take the time to look into it. But I don't have the time to study about such things that seem to me to be so relatively insignificant to feminism. I'm actually kind of curious how you do have so much time.

Collin wrote:

As for feminism not being needed; I already addressed that.

So have you changed your stance and I just haven't read carefully enough to notice? In my mind, I recall you having a disparaging attitude toward feminism in general (in this or other threads) and that is what I've taken exception to. If you're now in support of feminism in general, good for you!

On another note, I've been trying to figure out where the disconnect lies with us. I think it's got to be an age difference, a gender difference, a difference in culture/nationality, or most likely a combination of the three. Perhaps young, European men don't live in the same world as I do. If there are no socially constructed, negative expectations of gender roles in your country, maybe I should just move over there and could try to be as unconcerned about it as you seem to be. That would probably be more enjoyable anyway. If men in the 21-year-old generation no longer feel any social pressure to fix cars, kill spiders, bring home the bacon, be tough, not cry, etc., that's great. But I know plenty of American men just 10 years older who do feel this pressure.

decides2dream · August 2008

btw - just an aside collin:
you should rent/watch the flick the contender
it IS an excellent film al on it's own, great script, great actors: joan allen, jeff bridges, gary oldman, just to name a few key characters. anyhoo...it does touch upon both the good the bad and the ugly of feminism, affirmative actions, gender double standards, etc. it's a REALLY good film all in it's own right, but as you do seem interested in the issues of a feminist agenda, while it is NOT a feminist film...it's a good watch and touches upon a lot. i think you would enjoy it from at the very least, a social science perspective.

i love it and have seen it numerous times....just again very recently.

OutOfBreath · August 2008

Collin wrote:

Again, I'll use an "obscure" example. The female tennis players. Feminists finally got their will and now female tennis players earn as much (at some tournaments) as male tennis players, though they obviously play less.

This seems contradictory to what feminism is about. All I'm interested is; do you support this and why? If not, why is no one speaking up against these feminists?

Sports is a poor example, since athletes dont get paid by the hour, or by the mile for their efforts. Marathon runners dont make 420 times as much as a 100 meter runner. It all depends on the popularity and sponsorship of that particular sport. And in tennis, the women games are just as much watched and just as popular as the men's, as far as I can gather. Hence a large difference in prize-money wouldn't be appropriate.

So I dont see the glaring injustice there, really, in having equal prize money. But in sports that have a great disparagy in popularity between the men and women, it wouldn't be that unnatural that the most popular one had the highest prize money.

Peace
Dan

VictoryGin · August 2008

Collin wrote:

I don't understand why feminists support unfair programmes like Title IX. I don't understand how other feminists claim it doesn't have to be unfair yet they don't do anything about it. I mean if you're pushing for something like this to create justice and you know it's currently unjust, do something about it!

didn't you just say in the same post that women should suck it up and accept that life is unfair?

also, why don't you fight this since it makes you so upset? why would you wait for some feminist, who you have contempt for anyway, fight for something that you want to see? have you considered that maybe those feminists are busy fighting a million other things? i'm guessing not because you don't seem to even honor that people would think there are a million things to fight for anyway.

you claim to know your history. did you know the ERA was never ratified? hilarious. but it's back on the 2008 democratic platform, which is nice.

let's see. there's also that women topless thing. it's obvious you don't live in america. or you'd know what happens when women try to breastfeed in public here. so sad.

VictoryGin · August 2008

Collin wrote:

Feminists like to draw parallels between feminism and the African-American civil rights movement, well here's a quote for them:

"Means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek."

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

ha. perhaps parallels are drawn because women were abolitionists before they were suffragists.

_ · August 2008

VictoryGin wrote:

you claim to know your history. did you know the ERA was never ratified? hilarious. but it's back on the 2008 democratic platform, which is nice.

Great point! Thanks for bringing it up.

Frankly, I don't see the Equal Rights Amendment being ratified in the U.S. anytime soon, unfortunately. :( It's just one more thing we still need to keep fighting for legislatively. Thanks so much for all your hard work!

Viva feminism!

CorporateWhore · August 2008

VictoryGin wrote:

didn't you just say in the same post that women should suck it up and accept that life is unfair?

I think he put it another way

hiyoooooooooo

Collin · August 2008

scb wrote:

Are you suggesting that you have a problem with this shift? (I ask because you seemed to say it as an argument against her argument about the pill.)

No, I don't have a problem with this shift. It's definitely not an argument against what d2d wrote.

Collin · August 2008

decides2dream wrote:

and i DO feel quite strongly about it still. control over one's reproduction, especially as a woman, is such an important issue to me, and i think it of paramount importance to maintain and improve women's access and freedoms of choice in that arena.

I agree with this. I just wasn't sure how you viewed this. I've read women talk about this and cite this as an example of "oppression" of women. I think that's ridiculous. You have a choice to have sex, you can tell your partner to wear a condom. There are plenty of other brith control methods as well.

But I agree, the pill should be readily available and cheaper if it's not where you live.

How many women take the pill and how many girls (16-18)?

as to your 'beef's with feminism, if it really bothers YOU, why don't you work against it instead of expecting others to?

i said earlier, i rather work towards things i desire rather than against things i am not interested in.

I don't expect others to work against it. I don't understand why they don't. I was talking about feminists who support certain actions (like Title IX) and then lecture me on equality, fairness and justice. It's hypocritical. If they do realise it's not working properly, I think they do have some responsibility to set it straight. And I think this is especially true in this case... a group that claims to be for fairness and equality has pushed for something that now creates inequality and injustice.

That being said, I think there's very little criticism of hypocritical feminists. You've expressed your opinion, that's good enough for me. But it seems most feminists would rather ignore all the negative actions and keep quiet.

Well, the fight in this example is the same. Feminists fight towards more equality. Now they've created inequality. Fighting against inequality is the same as fighting towards equality. I'm not saying all feminists should go into the streets and correct this wrong. I think if the ones that pushed for this see the injustice 'their' creation has created, they should do something about it. But if they don't... I won't loose any sleep over this. To me they've lost credibility and are hypocrites.

Collin · August 2008

scb wrote:

This hasn't been made clear to me at all.

That's not my problem. I think I've made it clear, you don't see it. I'm not going to put any effort in trying to show you that I do know what I claim I know.

I don't know what you're talking about. I don't know the first thing about tennis, players' pay rates, or why some people think women & men should be paid equally and others do not. I'm not going to speak up for or against something I know nothing about.

It's been all over the news, in the newspapers... everywhere. You could hardly ignore the raging feminists.

And you tell me I don't know everything about feminism. Here's a group doing some serious damage to the feminist public image and you don't even know about it.

You could tell me your side of the story, but that would still only be one side so I still couldn't judge. If this were actually some big, representative feminist cause, maybe I'd take the time to look into it. But I don't have the time to study about such things that seem to me to be so relatively insignificant to feminism. I'm actually kind of curious how you do have so much time.

This was big. So what do you consider a 'big representative feminist cause' within the Western world?

So have you changed your stance and I just haven't read carefully enough to notice? In my mind, I recall you having a disparaging attitude toward feminism in general (in this or other threads) and that is what I've taken exception to. If you're now in support of feminism in general, good for you!

I'm not in support of feminism in general. Some basics parts of feminism are part of the humanitarian view I subscribe to.

On another note, I've been trying to figure out where the disconnect lies with us. I think it's got to be an age difference, a gender difference, a difference in culture/nationality, or most likely a combination of the three. Perhaps young, European men don't live in the same world as I do. If there are no socially constructed, negative expectations of gender roles in your country, maybe I should just move over there and could try to be as unconcerned about it as you seem to be. That would probably be more enjoyable anyway. If men in the 21-year-old generation no longer feel any social pressure to fix cars, kill spiders, bring home the bacon, be tough, not cry, etc., that's great. But I know plenty of American men just 10 years older who do feel this pressure.

I'm sure there are guys here who think it will prove their masculinity if they can fix cars, kill spiders, be tough all the time and never cry... So what? I'm sure there are girls who like their men to be the stereotype of the strong man as well...

Who cares? If they want to do those things... I'm not going to stop them. It certainly doesn't bother women.

I rarely cry, I rarely kill spiders but I put them outside and I don't show my sensitive side very often (except when I remove spiders

). I don't understand what's wrong with that. I am a silent guy, I don't like to share personal things with people I hardly know... But that's the pressure many guys are feeling and my guess is more and more guys will try to fight this.

I'm not fighting it, though. I'm just not like that. When I was fifteen there was a lot of bad stuff in my life and a school counsellor came to me and asked me to tell me what was going on in my life. I said it's personal and I didn't want to talk about it. I spent the next three hours with the principal, the counsellor and a "buddy" teacher discussing my attitude problem. My attitude problem was that I didn't want to talk about what was going on in own my house, with my family members... I didn't want to explain the relationship between me and my family to strangers... I even told them I understood they were there to help me... But no, "it's okay to talk about your feelings", "it's nothing to be ashamed of"... The pressure was there to do something against my will... If a guy wants to cry and do ballet there should be no pressure on him to do the opposite... and likewise there should be no pressure on someone who wants to do the stereotypical masculine stuff.

It's those moments people can decide whether they are victims or not. I mentioned my friend earlier, he got a lot of shit for doing ballet. But generally most people respected him for doing his own thing. People noticed this didn't make him "gay" or whatever... He was just an average guy with above average talent in ballet. We still make jokes about it... it's all part of it... He doesn't care because he decided a long time ago he wouldn't let himself be defined by others.

Anyway... I think if women and men are treated equally it doesn't matter if a man wants to do the typical men stuff and a girl wants to do the typical girl stuff. It's their choice... If they are happy, let it be. I get the impression many feminists disagree with this. Talk to the women who want the traditional roles, who want to stay at home and cook and clean and take care of their husband. They feel pressure too...

Collin · August 2008

OutOfBreath wrote:

Sports is a poor example, since athletes dont get paid by the hour, or by the mile for their efforts. Marathon runners dont make 420 times as much as a 100 meter runner.

Marathon and 100 meter are two completely different sports. That's a very silly comparison.

It all depends on the popularity and sponsorship of that particular sport. And in tennis, the women games are just as much watched and just as popular as the men's, as far as I can gather. Hence a large difference in prize-money wouldn't be appropriate.

So I dont see the glaring injustice there, really, in having equal prize money. But in sports that have a great disparagy in popularity between the men and women, it wouldn't be that unnatural that the most popular one had the highest prize money.

Peace
Dan

Then I still don't have a freakin' clue what these feminists were fighting for... Women's tennis became popular only recently... Or more accurately, women's tennis only recently became nearly as popular as men's tennis. It became more popular through more marketing campaigns etc. Lack of sponsorship is not an injustice towards women. It's economics, I guess. Less atractive sport, less sponsorship, less sponsorship, less viewers...

And do you think athletes are soley paid based on the popularity of the sport? Would you have any problem with it if it wasn't actually as you say it is and they actually did look at the effort, durations, or miles... (within the same sport, of course)?

I don't think there's anything wrong with male players earning more if they do more, regardless where the money comes from...

Collin · August 2008

VictoryGin wrote:

didn't you just say in the same post that women should suck it up and accept that life is unfair?

If that's what you made of it, yeah sure, why not...

also, why don't you fight this since it makes you so upset? why would you wait for some feminist, who you have contempt for anyway, fight for something that you want to see? have you considered that maybe those feminists are busy fighting a million other things? i'm guessing not because you don't seem to even honor that people would think there are a million things to fight for anyway.

I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy. You don't have to fight it. But if you support it and don't fight it... You're a hypocrite in my eyes.

you claim to know your history. did you know the ERA was never ratified? hilarious. but it's back on the 2008 democratic platform, which is nice.

Yes, I did know that. Hilarious, isn't it. Either way, even if I didn't know that... what exactly is your point? There are probably countless examples of feminist actions that you don't know about... How much do you know about feminism in Belgium, or the Czech Republic, or Eritrea, or Equador?

OutOfBreath · August 2008

Collin wrote:

Marathon and 100 meter are two completely different sports. That's a very silly comparison.

The point was to show how rewards in sports have pretty much none correlation whatsoever with the amount of "work" involved. Thus pretty much muting the "men who do more" argument, since it can be easily showed that such an approach is irrelevant to the prizes in sports.

Then I still don't have a freakin' clue what these feminists were fighting for... Women's tennis became popular only recently... Or more accurately, women's tennis only recently became nearly as popular as men's tennis. It became more popular through more marketing campaigns etc. Lack of sponsorship is not an injustice towards women. It's economics, I guess. Less atractive sport, less sponsorship, less sponsorship, less viewers...

I think you make it a bigger issue for "feminists" than they view it themselves.

And do you think athletes are soley paid based on the popularity of the sport? Would you have any problem with it if it wasn't actually as you say it is and they actually did look at the effort, durations, or miles... (within the same sport, of course)?

They are. Period. Since sports is funded pretty much exclusively through sponsorships and gate receipts, popularity equals pay-out. Working out a payment-per-calorie-spent scheme sounds very complicated and would require a dash of totalitarianism to work.

I don't think there's anything wrong with male players earning more if they do more, regardless where the money comes from...

Again, how do you determine that they do more? Should they charge by the hour for training and practice sessions? Just because the men may play the games for a bit longer than the women doesnt mean they do much more. To put it another way, a band can make just as much money playing a 1 hour gig, as they do a 2-3 hour gig. To be a popular band would still require the same amount of practice, song-writing, marketing and so on. So I really think that is a pretty irrelevant point.

As for the wimbledon or whatever paying the same to the men and women, when the competition goes simultaneously with pretty much the same media attention and indeed audience, I dont see why the prize money cant be the same. I can live with the male players getting larger sponsorship packages and shoe-deals for commercials and so on, if they are more popular.

But if you wish to define feminism from obscure cases like this, well, you are missing all the fundamentals of what it is all about. Dont use the most pc-cases to discredit feminism, just as you shouldn't use Michael Moore to discredit the american left....

Peace
Dan

Collin · August 2008

OutOfBreath wrote:

Again, how do you determine that they do more? Should they charge by the hour for training and practice sessions? Just because the men may play the games for a bit longer than the women doesnt mean they do much more. To put it another way, a band can make just as much money playing a 1 hour gig, as they do a 2-3 hour gig. To be a popular band would still require the same amount of practice, song-writing, marketing and so on. So I really think that is a pretty irrelevant point.

How do you determine they do more? Well, first of all you look at what they do and what they're paid for: the game. Men play longer. It does mean they do more. A band that plays two hours does more than a band that plays one hour. They play an hour longer.

Say you love two bands equally. They both play Saturday night. Tickets are $60 for both bands. You have to make a choice. You know band A plays 3 hours and you know band B plays 1 hour. A reasonable person would pick band A because band A plays two hours more than band B. You don't say, well, I'm sure both bands spend as much time writing songs, rehearsing... so it doesn't matter.

As for the wimbledon or whatever paying the same to the men and women, when the competition goes simultaneously with pretty much the same media attention and indeed audience, I dont see why the prize money cant be the same. I can live with the male players getting larger sponsorship packages and shoe-deals for commercials and so on, if they are more popular.

Sure, they get the same media attention. But men play longer. That means people stare at their TVs longer, that means they see advertisements longer... More money for the sponsors, more money for the athletes... seems fair and logical, doesn't it?

But if you wish to define feminism from obscure cases like this, well, you are missing all the fundamentals of what it is all about. Dont use the most pc-cases to discredit feminism, just as you shouldn't use Michael Moore to discredit the american left....

:rolleyes:

Feminism...

Comments

Categories