Dueling genders

[tented]

like i said i know you are a feminist with all those one-sided crap argument, which are based on nothing but bias. You easily resort to calling someone 'sexist' as soon as they claim some WTA player is unattractive -

This is now the second thread in which I've caught you quoting the word "sexist," accusing someone of using it, when you're the only one using it. Quit putting words in other peoples' mouths, and get your facts straight before making accusations.

 

[Ricardo]

like i said i know you are a feminist with all those one-sided crap argument, which are based on nothing but bias. You easily resort to calling someone 'sexist' as soon as they claim some WTA player is unattractive -

This is now the second thread in which I've caught you quoting the word "sexist," accusing someone of using it, when you're the only one using it. Quit putting words in other peoples' mouths, and get your facts straight before making accusations.

Moxie was the one who started it, get YOUR facts straight first. Evidence? she accused Huntingyou of that, now i've proven it where is your evidence that i put word in other's mouths?

 

[britbox]

There seems to be some blurriness here between equal rights and actually being equal. Totally different things. With regards to sporting prowess, the top males in the vast majority of sports are superior to their female counterparts. It might not be PC but it's a fact of life.

 

[Kieran]

Moxie was the one who started it, get YOUR facts straight first. Evidence? she accused Huntingyou of that, now i've proven it where is your evidence that i put word in other's mouths?

If you can show where Moxie used the word 'sexist' - as you quoted her as doing - you'd help your cause a lot more. I quickly searched and found that actually Moxie didn't use that word at all...

 

[Ricardo]

There seems to be some blurriness here between equal rights and actually being equal. Totally different things. With regards to sporting prowess, the top males in the vast majority of sports are superior to their female counterparts. It might not be PC but it's a fact of life.

I don't understand why some refuse to admit that superior players SHOULD get better viewership and prize-money; it's only natural this way, but of course people can tweak in such a way to make it 'equal', which is inequality itself.

Of course the easiest way to achieve that fake equality is by putting better players and inferior players under one roof, forcing people to watch them all. If 8000 fans showed up, then they can claim that 8000 people watched BOTH male and female players - which means they should get equal pay.... and that's just for starters

Unfortunate a lot of people buy into this kind of manipulated equality and would go along with PC just fine.... thinking they are 'modern' people.

 

[britbox]

There seems to be some blurriness here between equal rights and actually being equal. Totally different things. With regards to sporting prowess, the top males in the vast majority of sports are superior to their female counterparts. It might not be PC but it's a fact of life.

I don't understand why some refuse to admit that superior players SHOULD get better viewership and prize-money; it's only natural this way, but of course people can tweak in such a way to make it 'equal', which is inequality itself.

Of course the easiest way to achieve that fake equality is by putting better players and inferior players under one roof, forcing people to watch them all. If 8000 fans showed up, then they can claim that 8000 people watched BOTH male and female players - which means they should get equal pay.... and that's just for starters

Unfortunate a lot of people buy into this kind of manipulated equality and would go along with PC just fine.... thinking they are 'modern' people.

For me it depends on the consumer, and it's not always based on superior athleticism. For instance, some darts players might earn more than some heptathletes because the consumer dictates.

Also, I would rather watch a match between Graf & Seles (for instance) in their prime than Ferrer v Berdych, despite the level - largely based on the rivalry and everything that went with it. I reckon the first match would generate higher viewing figures and consumer demand than the second.

If you look at market forces, then Sharapova probably has higher endorsements than Djokovic (that was the case, it might be different now).

So, I don't think it's as black and white as a lot of people think, but also agree that women shouldn't receive the same as men for "equality" reasons - it should be market forces dictating 100%.

 

[Ricardo]

Moxie was the one who started it, get YOUR facts straight first. Evidence? she accused Huntingyou of that, now i've proven it where is your evidence that i put word in other's mouths?

If you can show where Moxie used the word 'sexist' - as you quoted her as doing - you'd help your cause a lot more. I quickly searched and found that actually Moxie didn't use that word at all...

Ok my memory went awol, and it was ftan who accused hunting of 'male chauvinist' in maria-grigor thread. so i'd need to make the correction, however my take on her feminist views doesn't change. The sort of 'equality' ideas she stands for, is manufactured by ungrateful feminists.

 

[Kieran]

It isn't about male players being better, but there is an issue here. We make allowances for the women's game and say the inferiority is gender-based - but these allowances aren't reflected in the prize money. It's like, "we give an inferior product, but that's because woman aren't as strong as men. We still want the same prize money, though."

The argument against this is simple: women's tennis is a totally different event to men's tennis. The women are as great in their field as the men are in theirs. Therefore, their achievements, based within their gender, are the same.

The whole equality argument holds up in certain circumstances: a woman can equally do a lot of things a man can do. There are a lot of things a woman can do better. And there are things which men do better. But I would say that men and women are obviously different, and ignoring this because we have to accept a faux-equality across the board is not only dishonest, but it's also fairly boring.

Obama ran into a cake-storm (see how nice I am with my language ) when he described Kamala Harris as "the best-looking attorney general in the country." I know, it's a different issue, and it shows how prudish and humourless things get, but it's the baseline we're hitting the serves from. Gender politics. I hope we never get to that stage in Ireland, where a chap can't compliment a girl without her and her cohorts hissy-fitting about it. And I believe that gender-politics is the driving force behind equal pay in tennis.

I think gender politics is necessary and women are finally getting a fair deal in the workplace. They are equal in human dignity with the male and should be respected as such, and treated as such. But is women's tennis worth the same prize money as men's? And actually, as you know, they earn more because they can swan through the singles and play doubles too, all with much lower demands and quality to men's tennis. So are they worth it?

They don't tick any market-indicator boxes for me, and I think if we uncoupled the slams, in ten years women's tennis wouldn't be able to pay their top players the same pay as the men get.

But as I also said above, I'm not in favour of uncoupling the slams because I think both tours make up professional tennis, in all its glorious traditions, not just the ATP...

---

Ok my memory went awol, and it was ftan who accused hunting of 'male chauvinist' in maria-grigor thread. so i'd need to make the correction, however my take on her feminist views doesn't change. The sort of 'equality' ideas she stands for, is manufactured by ungrateful feminists.

As an apology, this one is hardly very gentlemanly...

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

There seems to be some blurriness here between equal rights and actually being equal. Totally different things. With regards to sporting prowess, the top males in the vast majority of sports are superior to their female counterparts. It might not be PC but it's a fact of life.

I don't understand why some refuse to admit that superior players SHOULD get better viewership and prize-money; it's only natural this way, but of course people can tweak in such a way to make it 'equal', which is inequality itself.

Of course the easiest way to achieve that fake equality is by putting better players and inferior players under one roof, forcing people to watch them all. If 8000 fans showed up, then they can claim that 8000 people watched BOTH male and female players - which means they should get equal pay.... and that's just for starters

Unfortunate a lot of people buy into this kind of manipulated equality and would go along with PC just fine.... thinking they are 'modern' people.

For me it depends on the consumer, and it's not always based on superior athleticism. For instance, some darts players might earn more than some heptathletes because the consumer dictates.

Also, I would rather watch a match between Graf & Seles (for instance) in their prime than Ferrer v Berdych, despite the level - largely based on the rivalry and everything that went with it. I reckon the first match would generate higher viewing figures and consumer demand than the second.

If you look at market forces, then Sharapova probably has higher endorsements than Djokovic (that was the case, it might be different now).

So, I don't think it's as black and white as a lot of people think, but also agree that women shouldn't receive the same as men for "equality" reasons - it should be market forces dictating 100%.

touching on a whole other subject here, i guess, but i just wanted to add one small caveat to the "market forces" determination of who gets what: the problem is that it's not really possible to do so. sure, fully seperating the tours and all events, each generating their own prize money to distribute would be one way of going about it - but you'd be killing the sport. as you point out, there's high profile women players and match-ups, and they contribute, a lot, even to the men's side of things. with the demise of us-american ATP tennis, it's really the women (read: the Williams sisters, plus a few Eastern European belles) who help(ed) the sport survive in a market as important as the States. take them from an even like the US Open, and you're in big trouble. i think the close relationship of male and female tennis is actually an asset for the sport.

so i'm with you 100% - it's definitely not black and white, and even the gray areas are quite shady and patchy


as a side-note, i got to say i'm a bit surprised that this thread got resurrected even after someone in here went completely off the rails.

 

[Ricardo]

There seems to be some blurriness here between equal rights and actually being equal. Totally different things. With regards to sporting prowess, the top males in the vast majority of sports are superior to their female counterparts. It might not be PC but it's a fact of life.

I don't understand why some refuse to admit that superior players SHOULD get better viewership and prize-money; it's only natural this way, but of course people can tweak in such a way to make it 'equal', which is inequality itself.

Of course the easiest way to achieve that fake equality is by putting better players and inferior players under one roof, forcing people to watch them all. If 8000 fans showed up, then they can claim that 8000 people watched BOTH male and female players - which means they should get equal pay.... and that's just for starters

Unfortunate a lot of people buy into this kind of manipulated equality and would go along with PC just fine.... thinking they are 'modern' people.

For me it depends on the consumer, and it's not always based on superior athleticism. For instance, some darts players might earn more than some heptathletes because the consumer dictates.

Also, I would rather watch a match between Graf & Seles (for instance) in their prime than Ferrer v Berdych, despite the level - largely based on the rivalry and everything that went with it. I reckon the first match would generate higher viewing figures and consumer demand than the second.

If you look at market forces, then Sharapova probably has higher endorsements than Djokovic (that was the case, it might be different now).

So, I don't think it's as black and white as a lot of people think, but also agree that women shouldn't receive the same as men for "equality" reasons - it should be market forces dictating 100%.

well i agree with that, but that's only because Graf and Seles were part of the group who received such concession (playing in lower league called WTA, and established stardom there, against inferior players and not the best). They'd never be stars in an unprotected environment in the first place, and in that case we'd still be watching Ferrer vs Tsonga while Graf and Seles would've been ranked in the 1000s playing some little events somewhere.

Their importance on the tennis stage is simply manufactured through series of concessions and protections. Graf was my fav female player, but i need to be able to separate my own sentiments from those facts.

 

[Ricardo]

It isn't about male players being better, but there is an issue here. We make allowances for the women's game and say the inferiority is gender-based - but these allowances aren't reflected in the prize money. It's like, "we give an inferior product, but that's because woman aren't as strong as men. We still want the same prize money, though."

The argument against this is simple: women's tennis is a totally different event to men's tennis. The women are as great in their field as the men are in theirs. Therefore, their achievements, based within their gender, are the same.

The whole equality argument holds up in certain circumstances: a woman can equally do a lot of things a man can do. There are a lot of things a woman can do better. And there are things which men do better. But I would say that men and women are obviously different, and ignoring this because we have to accept a faux-equality across the board is not only dishonest, but it's also fairly boring.

Obama ran into a cake-storm (see how nice I am with my language ) when he described Kamala Harris as "the best-looking attorney general in the country." I know, it's a different issue, and it shows how prudish and humourless things get, but it's the baseline we're hitting the serves from. Gender politics. I hope we never get to that stage in Ireland, where a chap can't compliment a girl without her and her cohorts hissy-fitting about it. And I believe that gender-politics is the driving force behind equal pay in tennis.

I think gender politics is necessary and women are finally getting a fair deal in the workplace. They are equal in human dignity with the male and should be respected as such, and treated as such. But is women's tennis worth the same prize money as men's? And actually, as you know, they earn more because they can swan through the singles and play doubles too, all with much lower demands and quality to men's tennis. So are they worth it?

They don't tick any market-indicator boxes for me, and I think if we uncoupled the slams, in ten years women's tennis wouldn't be able to pay their top players the same pay as the men get.

But as I also said above, I'm not in favour of uncoupling the slams because I think both tours make up professional tennis, in all its glorious traditions, not just the ATP...

---

Ok my memory went awol, and it was ftan who accused hunting of 'male chauvinist' in maria-grigor thread. so i'd need to make the correction, however my take on her feminist views doesn't change. The sort of 'equality' ideas she stands for, is manufactured by ungrateful feminists.

As an apology, this one is hardly very gentlemanly...

---

For that error my apology to her is unreserved and unconditional, i made a mistake on that.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

well i agree with that, but that's only because Graf and Seles were part of the group who received such concession (playing in lower league called WTA, and established stardom there, against inferior players and not the best). They'd never be stars in an unprotected environment in the first place, and in that case we'd still be watching Ferrer vs Tsonga while Graf and Seles would've been ranked in the 1000s playing some little events somewhere.

Their importance on the tennis stage is simply manufactured through series of concessions and protections. Graf was my fav female player, but i need to be able to separate my own sentiments from those facts.

so what's the take-away from this? what's your point? is it bad that women do get to compete (against one another)? is anyone hurt by the 'concessions' that make this possible? this whole thread is just about an imaginary title (GOAT) that noone can effectively bestow on anyone, that comes with no prize money, benefits, comforts or powers. so be it if some feel that it should be judged on actual competition (where women can only play women, and all players can only play their contemporaries), while others insist that we include imaginary match-ups, be they across eras or genders.

 

[Ricardo]

Moxie was the one who started it, get YOUR facts straight first. Evidence? she accused Huntingyou of that, now i've proven it where is your evidence that i put word in other's mouths?

If you can show where Moxie used the word 'sexist' - as you quoted her as doing - you'd help your cause a lot more. I quickly searched and found that actually Moxie didn't use that word at all...

Ok my memory went awol, and it was ftan who accused hunting of 'male chauvinist' in maria-grigor thread. so i'd need to make the correction, however my take on her feminist views doesn't change. The sort of 'equality' ideas she stands for, is manufactured by ungrateful feminists.

it's interesting that you wrongly accused people of labeling you "sexist" to dismiss the quality of your arguments, but seemingly can't go for one sentence about Moxie's argumentation without putting it down to her being "feminist", as if that said anything bout the validity of her arguments.

I thought you'd notice that in this society full of PC, it's quite ok for one to claim proudly as a feminist, but not ok be have male-chauvinist views. I don't endorse male-chauvinism, but why should feminism be applauded when all it does is encouraging women to take confrontational actions against men? when it causes manipulated equality which is truly unequal? can't help to shake my head when i see certain female players arguing for 'equal pay' saying 'we train and play as hard as men'.... feminism is what gave them such screwed up concepts.

 

[Kieran]

I thought you'd notice that in this society full of PC, it's quite ok for one to claim proudly as a feminist, but not ok be have male-chauvinist views. I don't endorse male-chauvinism, but why should feminism be applauded when all it does is encouraging women to take confrontational actions against men? when it causes manipulated equality which is truly unequal? can't help to shake my head when i see certain female players arguing for 'equal pay' saying 'we train and play as hard as men'.... feminism is what gave them such screwed up concepts.

Well, you'd have to show that feminism is chauvinistic. I'm not sure that it is, in general. I don't agree with some elements of it, but some I do, and I think it's a force that has an essential place in keeping society honest in its dealings with women in the workplace and how they're viewed in general (although the caveat here is how some 'feminists' like Madonna and Beyonce and so forth project women, but this is a different thread altogether)...

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

Ok my memory went awol, and it was ftan who accused hunting of 'male chauvinist' in maria-grigor thread. so i'd need to make the correction, however my take on her feminist views doesn't change. The sort of 'equality' ideas she stands for, is manufactured by ungrateful feminists.

it's interesting that you wrongly accused people of labeling you "sexist" to dismiss the quality of your arguments, but seemingly can't go for one sentence about Moxie's argumentation without putting it down to her being "feminist", as if that said anything bout the validity of her arguments.

I thought you'd notice that in this society full of PC, it's quite ok for one to claim proudly as a feminist, but not ok be have male-chauvinist views. I don't endorse male-chauvinism, but why should feminism be applauded when all it does is encouraging women to take confrontational actions against men? when it causes manipulated equality which is truly unequal? can't help to shake my head when i see certain female players arguing for 'equal pay' saying 'we train and play as hard as men'.... feminism is what gave them such screwed up concepts.

all i was saying is that you sometimes seem to lay more emphasis on (your definition of) the label 'feminist/feminism' more than on the arguments. (i'd actually deleted the post you quoted before b/c i'd seen you reply to Kieran with a more open and honest apology in regards to your earlier misquotations and i appreciated that.

---

I thought you'd notice that in this society full of PC, it's quite ok for one to claim proudly as a feminist, but not ok be have male-chauvinist views. I don't endorse male-chauvinism, but why should feminism be applauded when all it does is encouraging women to take confrontational actions against men? when it causes manipulated equality which is truly unequal? can't help to shake my head when i see certain female players arguing for 'equal pay' saying 'we train and play as hard as men'.... feminism is what gave them such screwed up concepts.

Well, you'd have to show that feminism is chauvinistic. I'm not sure that it is, in general. I don't agree with some elements of it, but some I do, and I think it's a force that has an essential place in keeping society honest in its dealings with women in the workplace and how they're viewed in general (although the caveat here is how some 'feminists' like Madonna and Beyonce and so forth project women, but this is a different thread altogether)...

well put.

 

[tented]

Moxie was the one who started it, get YOUR facts straight first. Evidence? she accused Huntingyou of that, now i've proven it where is your evidence that i put word in other's mouths?

If you can show where Moxie used the word 'sexist' - as you quoted her as doing - you'd help your cause a lot more. I quickly searched and found that actually Moxie didn't use that word at all...

Ok my memory went awol, and it was ftan who accused hunting of 'male chauvinist' in maria-grigor thread. so i'd need to make the correction, however my take on her feminist views doesn't change. The sort of 'equality' ideas she stands for, is manufactured by ungrateful feminists.

In other words, you were wrong.

 

[Ricardo]

Moxie was the one who started it, get YOUR facts straight first. Evidence? she accused Huntingyou of that, now i've proven it where is your evidence that i put word in other's mouths?

If you can show where Moxie used the word 'sexist' - as you quoted her as doing - you'd help your cause a lot more. I quickly searched and found that actually Moxie didn't use that word at all...

Ok my memory went awol, and it was ftan who accused hunting of 'male chauvinist' in maria-grigor thread. so i'd need to make the correction, however my take on her feminist views doesn't change. The sort of 'equality' ideas she stands for, is manufactured by ungrateful feminists.

In other words, you were wrong.

I already indicated where my mistake was, unless you are implying it extends beyond that.... are you?

---

I thought you'd notice that in this society full of PC, it's quite ok for one to claim proudly as a feminist, but not ok be have male-chauvinist views. I don't endorse male-chauvinism, but why should feminism be applauded when all it does is encouraging women to take confrontational actions against men? when it causes manipulated equality which is truly unequal? can't help to shake my head when i see certain female players arguing for 'equal pay' saying 'we train and play as hard as men'.... feminism is what gave them such screwed up concepts.

Well, you'd have to show that feminism is chauvinistic. I'm not sure that it is, in general. I don't agree with some elements of it, but some I do, and I think it's a force that has an essential place in keeping society honest in its dealings with women in the workplace and how they're viewed in general (although the caveat here is how some 'feminists' like Madonna and Beyonce and so forth project women, but this is a different thread altogether)...

The elements that you agree with (keeping society honest in its dealings with women), i think it's essential but don't agree that it's achieved by feminists - in fact it's the men who have upheld such human rights as they have the ability to enforce it and uphold it. What feminism does, is to actually take it overboard and turn it into confrontational manners/actions against men, who are actually the ones protecting their civil rights.... that kind of ungratefulness, i despise.

 

[Kieran]

What feminism does, is to actually take it overboard and turn it into confrontational manners/actions against men, who are actually the ones protecting their civil rights.... that kind of ungratefulness, i despise.

Wait, wait, wait! Who are the ones men (according to you) are protecting their civil rights from?

 

[jhar26]

Well, we may as well kick off our new site with some controversial topics. And nothing gets people's bile up like comparing the men's and women's games.

Nah, what are you talking about?

 

[tented]

There seems to be some blurriness here between equal rights and actually being equal. Totally different things. With regards to sporting prowess, the top males in the vast majority of sports are superior to their female counterparts. It might not be PC but it's a fact of life.

I don't understand why some refuse to admit that superior players SHOULD get better viewership and prize-money; it's only natural this way, but of course people can tweak in such a way to make it 'equal', which is inequality itself.

Of course the easiest way to achieve that fake equality is by putting better players and inferior players under one roof, forcing people to watch them all. If 8000 fans showed up, then they can claim that 8000 people watched BOTH male and female players - which means they should get equal pay.... and that's just for starters

Unfortunate a lot of people buy into this kind of manipulated equality and would go along with PC just fine.... thinking they are 'modern' people.

For me it depends on the consumer, and it's not always based on superior athleticism. For instance, some darts players might earn more than some heptathletes because the consumer dictates.

Also, I would rather watch a match between Graf & Seles (for instance) in their prime than Ferrer v Berdych, despite the level - largely based on the rivalry and everything that went with it. I reckon the first match would generate higher viewing figures and consumer demand than the second.

If you look at market forces, then Sharapova probably has higher endorsements than Djokovic (that was the case, it might be different now).

So, I don't think it's as black and white as a lot of people think, but also agree that women shouldn't receive the same as men for "equality" reasons - it should be market forces dictating 100%.

Well put. I don't know why some people keep trying to equate superior strength and athleticism with superior quality. I agree 100% on watching the Graf/Seles match over Ferrer/Berdych. It doesn't matter that the men are stronger. It's what's more interesting, and, as you point out, the pay should reflect that.

Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova are great examples. Lots of people would pay more -- significantly more, probably -- to see them play, than to see a large percentage of the men. But could either of them beat, say, Ferrer? No. But should Ferrer be paid more because he's stronger? No.

Now, where do I sign up for those darts lessons?