Novak thinks that the ATP should fight for more prize money than the women

[Ricardo]

You can have equivalent abilities with different skill sets, I don't think anyone here has suggested otherwise. There's process and there's output; skill set and achievement. No one says that men and women are the same (thank god!). As a trader I worked in an environment with only a handful of women achieving consistently high results. Does that mean that women can't be good financial traders? No! The template is a male construct, and mightily flawed in terms of the asymmetric reward system. It's no surprise men tend to do better. Perhaps as the process evolves we'll see a different outcome. Why do I feel confident saying that? Because some of the women I worked with were smarter than me, and I'm supposedly quite clever There's absolutely no reason why they can't monetise their correct predictions about market moves

smart? not by judging your posts and the quick knee-jerk response to throw labels around without knowing the context... smart people don't do that.
I stand by my comment that men and women have different level of abilities in certain fields, tech and science clearly and it's been this way for as long as there is human existence.

About template that is a male construct, that's the same path moxie goes down to..... like sports are created to suit male strengths, its the same crap. how about just say the whole financial system is a male construct altogether so men do better? you can say the same about most things out there, most fundamental theories of science and tech are male 'construct' too (same applies to systems of politics, military, medicine, transport, and whatever)..... just think about what it means.

 

[Ricardo]

Liar's Poker is a popular book in my world! It's a great read. It comes second only to 'Reminiscences of a Stock Operator', which is almost like a bible for traders

I disagree about the template. It's no good members of one group coming to conclusions based on a system that works to their advantage. Would the same be said about a system designed by women that is optimal for them? Somehow I doubt it. Yes I agree the genders are wired differently, I just believe that if systems and the underlying society in which those systems reside are designed to maximise all resources we'll see different outcomes. You are correct there's nothing stopping women from making the same trades, but your mentality is different if you are afraid you might only have one shot, you'll be less inclined to bet the house. You'll find men who have the same concerns managing their risk differently as well, it's nothing to do with gender per se. But when the externalities work in your favour it impacts your appetite for risk. This is human nature. The system just skews in favour of guys. And as I said the system itself is/ was flawed.

One more thing though... to be clear.. I'm not saying that women aren't making the same trades, I'm saying they'll put on smaller positions, because they are much more cognisant of downside risks. Interestingly women are less likely to get attached to positions, there's less ego, which is one of the most important things for successful trading

not in finance industry, but you only need to look at casino players to see how they park their money. In gambling, men and women have very different approach about risk taking. Men are simply more aggressive in general while women take smaller steps to accumulate. According to you men who have same concern would manage risks differently, like women? not a chance, in general more men have the winner take all mentality far more than women......women are more willing to share, winner takes more but losers still survive (while male winners tend to 'butcher' the losers). now stop talking like a male feminist, it's bad for appetite and repulsive actually.

 

[Federberg]

Casino players... yes exactly the same thing. Reminds me of a conversation I had with my builder...

 

[Ricardo]

I see why you would come to that conclusion, but the problem is that the system has evolved in what was an essentially male environment. We don't know what alternatives might work better. It takes visionaries to come along to change things up, and most bank executives are far from that. They'll operate under the principle that if the current system is working, they're not going to risk introducing something else in case it ends their career. The fact that it exists in it's present form is because of the original environmental constraints. It doesn't speak to the changes in society outside, it's a fairly closed culture.

I honestly believed that certain things had changed in banking, but in the last few years, I know of two high achieving women who got pregnant and have been managed out of their positions. If I wasn't there watching it I wouldn't have believed it was possible. You go to all these 'townhall' meetings and here about the firms ethics and beliefs and you get suckered into believing it. But in practice a lot of the same old stuff still happens. Bottom line I can't say that things are best the way they are because it's not optimal for a segment of society that is only really starting to be accepted at the highest levels. Secondly the system itself in that form is to an extent subsidised by society at large which is terribly terribly wrong anyway

you have any idea how weak your argument is? suggest you take a dose of male hormone, would help you a lot. it's ridiculous that you criticise the current system (male construct) and imply a female construct would be better? firstly there is only the current system and secondly nobody can prove an imaginary female template would be better. Its like saying if rules of tennis are changed in whatever way, then the WTA players would be better. You don't just throw something that can't be proven and say its true, its childs play and a bad one at it. Try again.

 

[Ricardo]

Casino players... yes exactly the same thing. Reminds me of a conversation I had with my builder...

if the men have one shot, they would still be likely to go bold than women..... because they are mentally wired differently. Did your builder give you a smack on the face so you can man up a bit? (probably not because she is a female builder ) you are too feminine to pose as a bloke,

 

[Moxie]

More generalities with no back up. Getting to be a trend with you. And you still owe me on figure skaters.

 

[Ricardo]

More generalities with no back up. Getting to be a trend with you. And you still owe me on figure skaters.

how do you definitely define who a better figure skater is? you cannot, it's not objective as no direct competition with proper measures in place to decide the 'winner' unlike tennis, basketball and other sports. when you have significant scoring in artistic part, all bets are off.

Now your turn, if according to you women are better than men in ultra marathon, prove it. This one you owe me.

 

[Billie]

Artistic part of figure skating is as important as technical skills. Men are naturally predisposed to be stronger, faster, can do more complicated jumps (quads) than women, but there is something in gracefulness of female skaters. Anyway they don't compete against each other, so I don't think that is the issue. But they do compete in the same events throughout the year, which is not the case with tennis.

I already admitted I prefer men in sports generally, but that doesn't mean that women don't have the right to fight for more prizes and more pay for themselves, if they have a case for it.

I think that women are paid more in rhythmic gymnastics and synchronized swimming.

 

[Ricardo]

Artistic part of figure skating is as important as technical skills. Men are naturally predisposed to be stronger, faster, can do more complicated jumps (quads) than women, but there is something in gracefulness of female skaters. Anyway they don't compete against each other, so I don't think that is the issue. But they do compete in the same events throughout the year, which is not the case with tennis.

I already admitted I prefer men in sports generally, but that doesn't mean that women don't have the right to fight for more prizes and more pay for themselves, if they have a case for it.

I think that women are paid more in rhythmic gymnastics and synchronized swimming.

well you can't judge artistic part objectively so that will not determine who the better skater is, you can only do so with the technical part - through level of difficulty achieved etc. i was pointing to Moxie who just says women are better skaters and asked her what to based her conclusion on.

And there isn't a fair way to quantify gracefulness, its human preference and that's all it is. (oh i much prefer female skaters, and their natural curves have everything to do with the 'gracefulness') put simply, their sexy bodies make all the difference.

in case of tennis, what case have they got for fighting for more prize money? ATP has carried WTA 'MOST' of the time, what ground do they have to request for equal prize money? that is immoral.

btw they are paid more in modelling too, why do you think that is? i suggested sexy bodies, and Moxie is offended as usual

 

[calitennis127]

I'm not going to run back over the arguments of this thread because you didn't read it, but most agree that women deserve equal pay at coed events for the reasons you can go back and read. That's not the debate. And as has been made clear, women don't make more than the men, across the year, so you should be happy about that.

Forgive me for trying to be "clever," (god forbid my feeble little female brain should show you up on a point that you fail to comprehend,) but the best understanding of Djokovic's argument, that men deserve to be paid more, (if he's not to be read as a bit of a brat, at his pay-level, for complaining about it,) is that men's tennis should spread the wealth more equally, i.e., pay more at the lower rounds and less at the higher. Essentially, you don't understand how the system works. ATP and WTA are separate, and they don't govern the Majors. If Djokovic and the men have a qualm, it's mainly within their own system. But you can't create more money than there is. Either Djokovic wants more for himself, which would take it off the backs of the lower ranks, or he wants it more equally distributed. He may have been initially suggesting that they take it from the women's pot, but he walked that back, big time. And in any case, there are very few options for men to take it out of the women's kitty. They take from their own.

Moxie, do you seriously believe that the women's game generates as much revenue in terms of ticket sales and TV viewership as the men's game? Do you seriously think that it is equally as profitable?

 

[mrzz]

So they should put men against women in figure skating. But with razor sharp skating blades. Whoever kills the other wins. Men would decapitate all women in no time. We are superior! yeah!!!!!

 

[calitennis127]

I actually thought of Currie and expected you to bring her in, since there are not many other (if any) notable scientists of that magnitude in women. It also proves that if a woman was good enough her inventions would be recognised, so what does it mean that overall they contributed so little of the important innovations in general? look at facts and numbers Moxie.

Excellent point. One brilliant woman from the 20th century is Hannah Arendt. She was one of the most cogent analysts of totalitarianism. No one stopped her from writing her books, and her major work "The Origins of Totalitarianism" was published in 1951, long before the modern feminist movement was in full force. No one held her back or kept her from publishing.

There has never been a widespread conspiracy to make women miserable and hold them down. What Moxie is displaying is the post-Christian mentality of the West, in which Christian universalism is applied in a thoroughly anti-Christian manner. None of us can escape our heritage!

 

[calitennis127]

You know, Ricardo, there is something we agree on: we both don't like feminists. But I don't like feminism for a lot of reasons, and neither one is even close to believe that women are inferior or secondary to man, even if, in fact, as you I love the idea of annoying a feminist person.

The point is that while your posts are perfect for annoying feminists (one of the finest forms of entertainment, I admit), they are also perfect to offend women: it is hard to read them and not conclude that women are utterly inferior. Everyone is entitled to his opinion (and no, I wont use "his/hers". This is stupid. In fact, I could use only "hers", when referring to a person in general, I am not offended by that), so you are free to believe that, if you want. The point is that when you say out loud such an opinion (if it is in fact your opinion) you only fuel a lot of feminists in their rage, and give them a point.

Think of your mother, your sister, your wife/girlfriend, your daughter, your female friends, women you actually like and respect. Are they by definition inferior to any guy burping over his shoulder, peeing outside the target in a dirty public bathroom?

I guess not. So, a bit of caution is always good. I know it is a lot of fun to poke on political correctness, but beware on what ears your words might fall. Some random guy might read it and think it is ok to do what the hell he wants to the first girl he sees, that could be your sister. There's a lot of stupid people out there, not only textbook feminists...

Mrzz, this is not a matter of insulting women per se. This is a matter of stating matter-of-factly that the sexes are empirically and objectively unequal, with different strengths and weaknesses. If someone was to list a number of terrible things done by men because of their manly qualities, I would not object. The two sexes have different strengths and weaknesses.

Also, notice the hypocrisy of feminists when it comes to violence or domestic abuse. On the one hand, women are supposedly "equal" to men in every way (not just spiritually or morally, but in every conceivable fashion). On the other hand, when women are victims of violence it is far more egregious, a notion which is in accord with the traditional view that men should treat women "like a lady", in a chivalrous manner. Take the Michelle Fields case as an example. Trump's campaign manager tugged on her arm from behind and halted her progress. If that was a man, we would have never heard anything about it. But the braindead feminist movement made a big deal out of it as an attack on a woman, unwittingly making the case that women are different than men and should be treated with a certain type of gentleness.

 

[calitennis127]

Don't throw stones if your house is made of glass mate. In a few hundred years misogynists like you will be extinct and no doubt girls in school won't feel societal pressure to dismiss the sciences. Yes I feel quite certain that with equal numbers of men and women studying the sciences there won't be a statistically significant difference in the number of male and female nobel laureates for the sciences. I used the word 'unbelievable' because it amazes me that anyone would bring up the sciences to advance the idea of gender superiority.

Why is that unbelievable? It is completely within the realm of science to consider such questions. Leftists like yourself simply wish to repress whatever ideas you do not like.

In a couple hundred years, what is likely to be extinct (fortunately for everyone) are white leftists like yourself and Moxie. Modern Europeans generally have birthrates barely above 1, and the replacement level for any population is 2.1. The beautiful thing about the Islamic settling of Europe is that people like yourself will be replaced with misogynistic Muslims many times over. It's just too bad for the women who will have to put up with it!

 

[calitennis127]

don't call me mate, you are a hypocritical idiot who loves kissing feminists butt and play the label game so you can happily receive your beloved brownie points - typical of what petty losers do, i've seen too many the likes of you. and you feel certain about equal numbers of men and women in science? get out here, shows you have no understanding of human nature. Boys and girls are born different, it's not natural for them to be equally devoted in any particular field, can't believe i have to explain this to morons like you.

and men are better tennis players is redundant? entertainment first and foremost? bums on seats? this shows perfect how mentally retarded you are. Better tennis is better entertainment, why do you think club level players are less entertaining to watch than pro players? people pay for seats to watch better tennis, that's how it is based. The fact that you even think better tennis players argument is redundant, shows YOU are redundant. and my understanding of how "commerce" works? grow some brains before you even use the word.

Well-said, Ricardo. I wonder if Federberg finds it unjust that female models make so much more than male models, or that men have been woefully underrepresented as bank tellers and stewardson airplanes. Men have been such victims of this blatant bias.

 

[calitennis127]

Try and keep it civil.

Personally, I think it's largely about entertainment, not just better tennis and a lot stems from personalities, competition and rivalry. I prefer men's tennis based on all four... but I'll also put a bum on a seat if it's a ladies tennis match that IS competitive. I used to watch a lot of womens tennis in the Graf/Seles era because of all the above - the competition and rivalry made a big difference.

You got to bear in mind the big crowds at the biggest events are largely casual fans who outnumber hardcore tennis fans - they want big names, entertainment and competition. The depth in men's tennis right now outside the Top 20-30 is much deeper IMO.

On the other stuff, I think men and women are complimentary not the same. We're wired differently. I've taught programming and have found it something that is much harder (in general) to teach those concepts to a female than a male. There are exceptions but that was my general experience. It's not a knock against women, just the way it is in certain fields. I've no doubt the same applies vice versa... and it's not something that bothers me too much to be honest. Men are Mars, Women are from Venus.

You are a hate-filled sexist and such a bigot for saying these things. You need to be re-educated by the American practitioners of progress. Men and women are entirely equal in every way.

 

[calitennis127]

Liar's Poker is a popular book in my world! It's a great read. It comes second only to 'Reminiscences of a Stock Operator', which is almost like a bible for traders

I disagree about the template. It's no good members of one group coming to conclusions based on a system that works to their advantage. Would the same be said about a system designed by women that is optimal for them? Somehow I doubt it. Yes I agree the genders are wired differently, I just believe that if systems and the underlying society in which those systems reside are designed to maximise all resources we'll see different outcomes. You are correct there's nothing stopping women from making the same trades, but your mentality is different if you are afraid you might only have one shot, you'll be less inclined to bet the house. You'll find men who have the same concerns managing their risk differently as well, it's nothing to do with gender per se. But when the externalities work in your favour it impacts your appetite for risk. This is human nature. The system just skews in favour of guys. And as I said the system itself is/ was flawed.

One more thing though... to be clear.. I'm not saying that women aren't making the same trades, I'm saying they'll put on smaller positions, because they are much more cognisant of downside risks. Interestingly women are less likely to get attached to positions, there's less ego, which is one of the most important things for successful trading

You have offered zero evidence that women are only going to get "one shot", even if they are qualified. It's amazing how you can invent biases out of thin air and claim they exist to justify an argument.

 

[mrzz]

Mrzz, this is not a matter of insulting women per se. This is a matter of stating matter-of-factly that the sexes are empirically and objectively unequal, with different strengths and weaknesses. If someone was to list a number of terrible things done by men because of their manly qualities, I would not object. The two sexes have different strengths and weaknesses.

Also, notice the hypocrisy of feminists when it comes to violence or domestic abuse. On the one hand, women are supposedly "equal" to men in every way (not just spiritually or morally, but in every conceivable fashion). On the other hand, when women are victims of violence it is far more egregious, a notion which is in accord with the traditional view that men should treat women "like a lady", in a chivalrous manner. Take the Michelle Fields case as an example. Trump's campaign manager tugged on her arm from behind and halted her progress. If that was a man, we would have never heard anything about it. But the braindead feminist movement made a big deal out of it as an attack on a woman, unwittingly making the case that women are different than men and should be treated with a certain type of gentleness.

Answering the first paragraph: I agree with the fact that men and women are objectively different. This is a known fact in neuro-psychology. But it was not the point, which was simple: Ricardo sounded as he was insulting women (by the way, he responded to me in a very straight forward way, stating clearly that he did not meant to state all women were inferior. End of the discussion (at least for me)).

And I agree with your second paragraph too, at least with the part of that ridiculous case being blown out of proportion. The part of domestic violence is a bit tricky. I agree that first and foremost, laws should protect everyone against violence, period. But, for historical reasons (or whatever, it does not matter), and yet helped by the superior body strength of man, there is a specific kind of domestic violence against women. Like you, I don't like the "feminist" hysteria, but there are objective problems that society should address. We should not forget that just because a bunch people say a bunch of stupid things.

 

[Ricardo]

So they should put men against women in figure skating. But with razor sharp skating blades. Whoever kills the other wins. Men would decapitate all women in no time. We are superior! yeah!!!!!

what utter non-sense, i responded to someone who claimed women are simply better figure skaters and provided valid questions regarding how they use the criteria. nobody kills anybody and nobody gets hurt, got a problem?

 

[Ricardo]

You have offered zero evidence that women are only going to get "one shot", even if they are qualified. It's amazing how you can invent biases out of thin air and claim they exist to justify an argument.

even if given 'one shot', the men still would react differently than women in general. it's the differences in nature, one is not more 'right' than another. funny they want to manipulate people into thinking both genders would react and perform the same under same environment, that's just crock of sh!t. but don't tell Federberg that, he is a self-proclaimed smart 'man'.