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

[mrzz]

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?

Easy, Ricardo, I am having fun, and did not addressed you directly on this. And I don't got a problem, don't worry.

 

[Federberg]

Easy, Ricardo, I am having fun, and did not addressed you directly on this. And I don't got a problem, don't worry.

Lol! I would ignore it like I do @mrzz. He's one of those aggressive warriors with keyboard tourette's. Probably a pussy cat in real life

 

[Ricardo]

Lol! I would ignore it like I do @mrzz. He's one of those aggressive warriors with keyboard tourette's. Probably a pussy cat in real life

pussy cats patronise with feminists to make a living or feel relevant, they are the lowest life form

they also tend to self-claim being smart, and say they can tell what happens some hundred years later

 

[calitennis127]

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.

Good points all-around. I tend to get annoyed when feminists talk as if the concept of respecting women was invented in the 1970s, and especially when they conflate chivalrous attitudes with accepting the anti-male, anti-Christian, anti-human agenda of the feminist movement. Mistreating women has always been looked down upon in Western civilization. You can go back to Shakespeare's play "The Rape of Lucrece" and see that the nasty dead white male Shakespeare clearly took the female side in cases of sexual aggression by men. Modern white feminists did not invent the notion of treating women respectfully. It was around long before.

Also, it is worth noting that you can treat women perfectly well without hopping on board with hating Western civilization and Christianity. In fact, it is no coincidence that Christian civilization has tended to treat women the best. It is extremely ironic that the viscerally anti-Christian left in Europe and America defends Islam when in Islamic societies women are often treated like slaves.

 

[calitennis127]

Lol! I would ignore it like I do @mrzz. He's one of those aggressive warriors with keyboard tourette's. Probably a pussy cat in real life

Coming from someone whose comments on crime and police in America are 100% wrong because he does not relate at all to any of the people involved.

 

[Moxie]

Good points all-around. I tend to get annoyed when feminists talk as if the concept of respecting women was invented in the 1970s, and especially when they conflate chivalrous attitudes with accepting the anti-male, anti-Christian, anti-human agenda of the feminist movement. Mistreating women has always been looked down upon in Western civilization. You can go back to Shakespeare's play "The Rape of Lucrece" and see that the nasty dead white male Shakespeare clearly took the female side in cases of sexual aggression by men. Modern white feminists did not invent the notion of treating women respectfully. It was around long before.

Also, it is worth noting that you can treat women perfectly well without hopping on board with hating Western civilization and Christianity. In fact, it is no coincidence that Christian civilization has tended to treat women the best. It is extremely ironic that the viscerally anti-Christian left in Europe and America defends Islam when in Islamic societies women are often treated like slaves.

I've asked before, but I wish you guys would stop throwing around the term "feminist," which obviously offends you all, and you have no idea that most women are post-feminist, at this point. You're equating us all with the most radical faction of separatist feminism from the 70s, and that's not fair or accurate. A woman speaks up on behalf of other women, and you, anyway, Cali, say "anti-male, anti-Christian, anti-human." Now, that's a bit over-board, isn't it? (Obviously, a lot of the men on this thread have been hugely more fair.) Mistreating women has not actually always been looked down upon in Western Christian countries. In many, for centuries, women were the property of their fathers to be traded off in marriage, or of their husbands, who could by law "correct" them. All of their wealth went to their husbands. And the opposite was not the case. Surely, Shakespeare created many strong female characters and he was generous to them. But let's not go overstate it and pretend that that applied to the society at large. Women in the 16th C. in Italy often had a great deal of power, and were widely publish authors, as well as painters and political players famous to this day. Just as one example, and so I would never pretend that respect for and appreciation of women on sometimes equal levels was invented in the 1970s. However, it did change seismically the level of self-determination, sexual freedom beyond the confines of marriage and the concept of equal rights in the workplace. It's not just how men saw or treated women, it's how women saw themselves. That's what you're are failing to understand. Of course the seeds were planted earlier, especially in the 40s, during the war. And with De Beauvoir, Friedan, and the hippie and anti-war movement in the 60s. But the flowering was in the 70s.

 

[mrzz]

Things is that we will debate endlessly, as each one will associate the word "feminism" to a different group and attitude. Me, and probably a lot of guys here, are associating it to a specific group, which is, well, annoying to say the least (and, sorry Moxie, they exist yet. In fact, most of the [bad] arguments public figures gave on the subject which originated this thread go along those lines).

Moxie, and maybe Federberg, associate the word feminism with more positive meanings, and to groups of people with a fare more balanced point of view than the groups "we" think of when thinking of feminism. If you look closely, all the debate here gravitates around this difference.

 

[Federberg]

Lol! I wouldn't characterise myself as a feminist. I just believe in equity and accepting responsibility, whether for genders or races. Moxie and I don't always agree, and as far as I recall on this equal pay thing we certainly don't. As I've said before I view this issue purely on a commercial aspect. If men are putting more bums on seats they should get paid more. If women are then they should get paid more. We've veered off the thread many times with some faulty (in my view) rationalisations. That's where I disagree with some of the other guys on this thread. It's really not about whether a man can beat a woman at tennis. This is about whether more people want to see men play or women. It's that simple

 

[britbox]

Lol! I wouldn't characterise myself as a feminist. I just believe in equity and accepting responsibility, whether for genders or races. Moxie and I don't always agree, and as far as I recall on this equal pay thing we certainly don't. As I've said before I view this issue purely on a commercial aspect. If men are putting more bums on seats they should get paid more. If women are then they should get paid more. We've veered off the thread many times with some faulty (in my view) rationalisations. That's where I disagree with some of the other guys on this thread. It's really not about whether a man can beat a woman at tennis. This is about whether more people want to see men play or women. It's that simple

But on the trading thread, didn't you think the system was skewed in favour of men's higher risk taking? and that the system was the problem rather than the gender of the traders?

I'm in favour of an open playing field and the best person to meet the requirements of the job... rather than changing the job to suit a demographic.

 

[Federberg]

But on the trading thread, didn't you think the system was skewed in favour of men's higher risk taking? and that the system was the problem rather than the gender of the traders?

I'm in favour of an open playing field and the best person to meet the requirements of the job... rather than changing the job to suit a demographic.

Absolutely! But that doesn't make me a feminist. I made that statement based on what I consider to be an objective assessment. Having worked in that environment I can well understand how many women can be disadvantaged by the way things are set up. This doesn't have to be an issue, but in my opinion a bank should be trying to maximise its risk adjusted return and I don't think that system does that. It's better to have lots of traders who make minimal losses in bad years and decent returns in good years than a few traders who can make stunning returns in some years and virtually break the bank in other years. Just my view.. but I think the market tends to agree with that by the way. Volatile but high earnings get a heavier discount in comparison to lower more consistent earnings generally (from an equity valuation perspective I mean)

 

[mrzz]

Hey, Federberg, I never said you were a "feminist", only that your view of the group was not as negative as "ours", which I guess it is true.

By the way, I work with risk (I am a physicist who decided to have a better salary), and a lot of financial institutions, in fact most of them, do care about their risk adjusted returns (at least they do have a firm risk policy). Maybe they all keep some macho traders for some reason or another (some clients might like it), but for sure people who on the long run make profit will find their place. This is the nature of capitalism.

 

[Federberg]

Hey, Federberg, I never said you were a "feminist", only that your view of the group was not as negative as "ours", which I guess it is true.

By the way, I work with risk (I am a physicist who decided to have a better salary), and a lot of financial institutions, in fact most of them, do care about their risk adjusted returns (at least they do have a firm risk policy). Maybe they all keep some macho traders for some reason or another (some clients might like it), but for sure people who on the long run make profit will find their place. This is the nature of capitalism.

No worries at all. I was just clarifying my position. I'm an Aeronautical Engineer who decided to have a better salary too! Greed is good baby!

Yes I agree banks place a premium on higher risk adjusted returns, but what you tend to find is that they focus more on the limits and aggregates. So if a trader moves outside of his/her prescribed range they'll get a visit from the risk police or head of trading. They might also have a word with trader's who never get anywhere near using their full risk allocation. But of course this relies on risk being measured correctly at any given point in time, and what we've found over the years is that positions that look benign at any given time can suddenly look massively risky if correlations are moving to 1. I'm sure you've been there before Of course the key point is that risk systems can be quite wobbly in terms of establishing what the appropriate risk levels are at any given time. Whether you're using VAR as your measure, or decaying historic data. What we tended to do in the end was use a variety of measures such as GARCH and implied vols to come up with a more sensitive reading of our risk levels, and even more importantly we monitored what our sensitivities to various key factors whether the dollar, oil, S&P, t-bills, ten year futures, you name it. We wanted to understand the factors that could kill us at any given time. But this was just the team of traders I worked with. We moved as a group (4 of us) from an investment bank to a number of different hedge funds over quite a number of years, so we developed a great deal of group experience for managing our team risk. But the banks and hedge funds had more basic measures of risk which were essentially backward looking. The point I'm trying to make is that some guys would put on massive positions which were ok based on historic data, but they were actually very risky after the fact.

One guy made the firm I was working in about $0.5bn from a huge short gold position in 2013 when gold tanked, but ended up losing money the next year, and the key point is that because of his success in 2013 his funds under management were doubled. He lost an absolute chunk the next year. That's not great risk management from a firm perspective but it's understandable why they did it. I'm sure you see what I'm getting at

 

[Moxie]

Today is Equal Pay Day here in the US. I figured I'd wish you all a happy one. B-) :lulz2:

This is an interesting article from today's NYTimes. A lot of players are quoted, and there is some subtlety in the arguments. Also, it describes where and why some of the discrepancies lie, and where some women's tournaments do actual turn out more fans. Worth a read, IMO. A lot of our points here are addressed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/s...am-majors-wta-atp.html?ref=international&_r=0