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

[mrzz]

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...

 

[Moxie]

I threw fire in there to see if you'd read it. But you didn't keep up your end of the bargain. And you don't know who developed search engines, do you?

 

[Federberg]

I can't believe that science is being brought into this discussion. If the implication is that women are less intelligent than men, then I think that most people on this forum will see such nonsense as the misogynistic crap it is. Let's check back in a few hundred years when the same proportions of women are passionate about the sciences, and it's likely there won't be statistical difference between the scientific accomplishments of the sexes. Unbelievable!!

 

[Ricardo]

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...

nah my understanding is that, most women are actually more intelligent than most men on average when i read about stats - but the very top males would be higher than the top females.... so no conclusion can be made about who is inferior intellectually. i know better than most guys how smart women are, my mum and wife run the show in my family because they can do things i cannot. The feminists however are a different story, i mean you can see that Moxie isn't smart... just look at her arguments, like women 'invented' fire?

but i got the fun, poking at feminists are fun. It's always entertaining to poke at those who feel entitled, yet no facts back them up. There is a big difference between women and feminists, smart women walk the walk and achieve, feminists just talk in such enraged manner as if the men victimised them. They always talk in a way to make it look like the world owes them

 

[Ricardo]

I can't believe that science is being brought into this discussion. If the implication is that women are less intelligent than men, then I think that most people on this forum will see such nonsense as the misogynistic crap it is. Let's check back in a few hundred years when the same proportions of women are passionate about the sciences, and it's likely there won't be statistical difference between the scientific accomplishments of the sexes. Unbelievable!!

you gotta stop being a hypocritical donkey and play the misogynist label games. What is 'unbelievable' is your ability to read into the future, there won't be stats difference... sure just make up whatever you want. what i do know is, men will still be better tennis players. now go see a doctor and remove some fat in your brains, it's blocked your ability to think.

 

[Federberg]

you gotta stop being a hypocritical donkey and play the misogynist label games. What is 'unbelievable' is your ability to read into the future, there won't be stats difference... sure just make up whatever you want. what i do know is, men will still be better tennis players. now go see a doctor and remove some fat in your brains, it's blocked your ability to think.

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.

By the way the whole argument that men are better tennis players than women is redundant, everyone knows that. This sport is about entertainment first and foremost. Where pay is considered it is about the ability to put bums on seats not about whether men can beat women at tennis. That's the argument of someone who doesn't understand how commerce works.

 

[Moxie]

Jaysus, Ricardo...I told you "fire" was a joke, and still you didn't get it. You are making the evolutionary argument that perhaps a man didn't invent it. B-)

 

[Ricardo]

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.

By the way the whole argument that men are better tennis players than women is redundant, everyone knows that. This sport is about entertainment first and foremost. Where pay is considered it is about the ability to put bums on seats not about whether men can beat women at tennis. That's the argument of someone who doesn't understand how commerce works.

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.

 

[Federberg]

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.

Lol! I'm not even going to bother trying to refute this. After all there's not so much of an argument as a rant here. Everyone can see it, so my job is done. Some feminists have really nice bums and I wouldn't mind giving them a kiss

 

[britbox]

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.

 

[Ricardo]

Jaysus, Ricardo...I told you "fire" was a joke, and still you didn't get it. You are making the evolutionary argument that perhaps a man didn't invent it. B-)

must also be a joke that sports are created to suit strengths of men

admit it, your argument has no basis. i know my argument stands true, do you?

 

[Ricardo]

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.

my word my word, so true men and women are wired differently yet someone thinks they would be the same. Doesn't matter how many years into the future, there will be more ballet dancers in females than males (or dancers in general), more female caretakers than males, in comparison there will be more male engineers, more male mathematicians, more male technology innovators etc, men and women simply have different interest by nature so more male scientists is simply very normal. apparently certain people has zero understanding of such things, and instead throws labels around trying to look 'fashionable' and 'updated'.

 

[Ricardo]

also my observations don't come from biases, got two degrees in engineering (telecom) and applied science (maths) and tutored students back in uni days. i also took on many subjects outside tech related areas (in business, language and arts) and one can tell the two genders have very different abilities in general, depending on what field you choose to look at. these days thanks to feminism and its butt kissers, it's only fashionable to say both genders are 'equal' when comparing their abilities in any field, any kind of denial and someone is quick to throw 'mysogynist' labels.

 

[Federberg]

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

 

[britbox]

The template is a male construct, and mightily flawed in terms of the asymmetric reward system.

Fberg - can you expand on what you mean by template in this context?

 

[Federberg]

Fberg - can you expand on what you mean by template in this context?

You get paid to take risk (these days most of these roles have moved to hedge funds, as investment banks have been forced to deleverage post the global financial crisis). The asymmetry comes from the fact that you get paid huge for making banks money but if you lose money you might lose your job but you keep the money you've already been paid. There are many guys who through out their careers have lost investors money in aggregate but because of the reward system are very wealthy. A lot of guys have no problem with this, but I've observed over the years that women are far less comfortable with the downside. I have a feeling it's not just moral but the fear that the next firm might be less willing to give a female trader a chance. So you find that female traders will make consistent but much smaller profits while guys can have much more volatile and outsize profit and loss

 

[britbox]

Thanks for the info... interesting information and I've been intrigued by all that stuff since I read a book called "Liar's Poker" - I guess you will have read it (great book).

But, surely the template is what it is... (high risk and reward) and it's been designed that way for a reason (nothing to do with the sex of traders)... and because we are wired differently the women have been less inclined to play the system in the way it's been designed? I mean, there is nothing physically stopping them making the same trade as the blokes - is that correct?

 

[Federberg]

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

 

[britbox]

I'll have to check Reminiscences of a Stock Operator out, because Liar's Poker was one of the best books I ever read... some of Lewis' other books are pretty good too.

I've got to say, I disagree with your viewpoint on this one. The system is in place because it's profitable for the banks and if a different system dreamt up by women to suit women traders was more successful it wouldn't take long before it was adopted.

I hold the view that you put up a system/template, may the best person win.... couldn't care less whether the winner is male or female... the system is what it is. If the system works better under a different template then prove it to me... otherwise everything is fair game... and we all know the rules at the beginning.

 

[Federberg]

I'll have to check Reminiscences of a Stock Operator out, because Liar's Poker was one of the best books I ever read... some of Lewis' other books are pretty good too.

I've got to say, I disagree with your viewpoint on this one. The system is in place because it's profitable for the banks and if a different system dreamt up by women to suit women traders was more successful it wouldn't take long before it was adopted.

I hold the view that you put up a system/template, may the best person win.... couldn't care less whether the winner is male or female... the system is what it is. If the system works better under a different template then prove it to me... otherwise everything is fair game... and we all know the rules at the beginning.

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