Serious PC thread

[Federberg]

Yes, you clarified, on the campus disruptions and equal pay. When did you bring in the google guy?

Read what I wrote Moxie I can’t do your reading for you. Just please get your facts straight in future.

 

[Horsa]

I'll be honest. On 1st viewing the video I thought male chauvinist & got angry about what was going on. On the 2nd viewing I started to look at the whole picture & thinking about the truths as well as the views I disagreed with.

 

[Moxie]

Read what I wrote Moxie I can’t do your reading for you. Just please get your facts straight in future.

Don't man-splain me. Say what you mean. I have given you the benefit, with your very loose POV on this one.

 

[mrzz]

Frankly, as to how tennis's approach to equal pay plays into the argument of the likes of the guy in that video: I don't give a shit. He's already committed to his opinion. That it makes the likes of you and Federberg get scratchy, frankly, surprises me. Why do you care how tennis spends its money?

It is a long debate and there other points that I would counter -- but since we are on the same page at least about intentions, I rather focus on the point here. Of course I also don't give a shit about what that guy in particular is saying...

You know that I find the "why do you care?" a very good question -- and an honest answer to it is very teaching to oneself. However, in this case, I guess it is clear why we care about how tennis spends its money: my post above is actually an answer to this precise question.

About the google guy: he is the reason behind what happens in the video passage that @Federberg called attention to. From the begining it was quite obvious to me that it was exactly to his story that he was alluding. Probably because we share interest/concern about this question it was clear to me and not to you.

 

[Federberg]

Don't man-splain me. Say what you mean. I have given you the benefit, with your very loose POV on this one.

Don’t know what the hell that means. You’re embarrassing yourself now. I very clearly wrote what I meant already. This is getting tiresome now. If you refuse to read it that’s up to you. You’re only fooling yourself.

 

[Moxie]

It is a long debate and there other points that I would counter -- but since we are on the same page at least about intentions, I rather focus on the point here. Of course I also don't give a shit about what that guy in particular is saying...

You know that I find the "why do you care?" a very good question -- and an honest answer to it is very teaching to oneself. However, in this case, I guess it is clear why we care about how tennis spends its money: my post above is actually an answer to this precise question.

About the google guy: he is the reason behind what happens in the video passage that @Federberg called attention to. From the begining it was quite obvious to me that it was exactly to his story that he was alluding. Probably because we share interest/concern about this question it was clear to me and not to you.

Your "post above" does not clarify to me why you care about tennis spends its money. I'd still be interested how it matters to you. You say it's a good question, and a teaching moment. I wish you'd flesh it out.

 

[Moxie]

Don’t know what the hell that means. You’re embarrassing yourself now. I very clearly wrote what I meant already. This is getting tiresome now. If you refuse to read it that’s up to you. You’re only fooling yourself.

The post was yours. I asked what it was about. You have been like nailing jello to the wall as to what your real point was. I'm not being tiresome, or embarrassing myself, that I can see. You're the one who refuses to own whatever the hell this was about in the first place. What was it about?

 

[Federberg]

The post was yours. I asked what it was about. You have been like nailing jello to the wall as to what your real point was. I'm not being tiresome, or embarrassing myself, that I can see. You're the one who refuses to own whatever the hell this was about in the first place. What was it about?

And yet I feel embarrassed for you. Read my post #166. If you still can’t comprehend after that there’s no point responding as clearly nothing will help you. Although I suspect this is just ego now. Either way I’m done

 

[Moxie]

Sigh... this is silly. Let's stipulate that I wasn't clear about the part of the video I was focussed on (several large glasses of Sancerre and a long day will do that sometimes!). Although even in my first unclear post it was obvious where my focus was. It's interesting to me that all you want to focus on is the provenance of the video instead of the portion I was interested in. As for whether it's attribution is alt-right, does that invalidate the specific lecture that I was looking at? Correct me if I'm wrong the whole point of this thread is the discussion of PC issues gone mad. If you don't want to discuss it that's fine. Trying to throw names or imply sympathies in my direction is a little weak don't you think? I'm surprised to see that from you Moxie, particularly as I think you know very well what my views are. So why the diversion? It seems unnecessarily defensive on your part.

Back to the substantive part that I was bringing to peoples attention, which by the way you then added credibility to by posting an alternative link. Anyone have any thoughts about that?

PS, you can keep trying to lambast me for posting the video Really doesn't bother me. In a way I thank you, because you're helping me directly experience what a lot of these conservative guys complain about - the fact that even if they have a legitimate policy gripe they're labelled an -ism and their substantive point is not confronted. Interestingly it's exactly the same tactic used by the protesters in the video. One going as far as to say that the women who stayed in the lecture hall to listen were brain-washed and another claiming that the ex-google guy is a Neo-nazi. Again a hysterical label, when it appears that his original email was mis-represented. This is my key point. I'm really surprised to learn only now that he was actually making a case for looking at different ways more women could be encouraged into Silicon Valley. Quite clearly fake news is a viable weapon on both extremes

OK, this was your #166 thread.

 

[Moxie]

And yet I feel embarrassed for you. Read my post #166. If you still can’t comprehend after that there’s no point responding as clearly nothing will help you. Although I suspect this is just ego now. Either way I’m done

Dude, I know you like me, and we're friends. I've never done anything on this one except to ask you to clarify terms. If there's an ego issue, it's yours. Please remember who posted that video, and who's ego is on the line about it. Surely, it's yours. (And I know, "please don't call me Shirley.")

 

[mrzz]

When it's said that people would prefer to watch men's sport to women's this is not always the case.

For sure is not always the case. And even if it was -- what is the problem with that? Let us say that someone counted and for all sports there are more people willing to watch the men's version rather than the women's. So what? At best it means that (following the capitalist logic) sportsmen on average should be paid more than sportswomen. It does not mean anything else. And we know that there are a lot of professions (probably all more "important" than professional sports) that women, on average, do better than men. The problem, IMO, is trying to look at all aspects of human life as competition among genders, and, specially trying to take general conclusions about the relations among man and woman out of viewer ratings in sports! Frankly, that's quite crazy, and when we engage in such debates we are kind of implicitly accepting this notion. That is exactly the game I do not want to play.

make it 4 for each

Best of 4! Good old Brit sense of humor...

 

[mrzz]

Your "post above" does not clarify to me why you care about tennis spends its money. I'd still be interested how it matters to you. You say it's a good question, and a teaching moment. I wish you'd flesh it out.

Sorry, I meant post #172. I guess that it is implicit -- in fact almost explicit -- there that I realize that tennis (and sports in general) can be and in fact are used as examples to the general case. It is the general case, and the struggles around it, that I do care about.

When I say that I don't like the equal pay concept it does not mean that I do not recognize that there are prejudice out there. There is. But just looking at average figures does not tells the whole story. It can tell, in fact, a wrong story. Incomplete to say the least.

Moving to the "question", I like it because it attacks the problem from the correct angle: inside out. It is important to put it in all its words: "why do you care if a given group of women earn more than a given group of men?"

If the situation in itself bothers you, than there is no way you can deny your prejudice. The first time you asked that question I thought about it really hard, and I was relieved to realize that only the tennis version bothered me. I pictured women in my workplace making more money than men. Luckily I am completely OK with that (since they earned it by their merits).

 

[Moxie]

Sorry, I meant post #172. I guess that it is implicit -- in fact almost explicit -- there that I realize that tennis (and sports in general) can be and in fact are used as examples to the general case. It is the general case, and the struggles around it, that I do care about.

When I say that I don't like the equal pay concept it does not mean that I do not recognize that there are prejudice out there. There is. But just looking at average figures does not tells the whole story. It can tell, in fact, a wrong story. Incomplete to say the least.

Moving to the "question", I like it because it attacks the problem from the correct angle: inside out. It is important to put it in all its words: "why do you care if a given group of women earn more than a given group of men?"

If the situation in itself bothers you, than there is no way you can deny your prejudice. The first time you asked that question I thought about it really hard, and I was relieved to realize that only the tennis version bothered me. I pictured women in my workplace making more money than men. Luckily I am completely OK with that (since they earned it by their merits).

You don't answer the question, though: why do you care if women in tennis get paid same as men?

I like that you recognize that, if you are bothered, you have some prejudice. But you leave that rather unexplored. You were "relieved" that it was only in tennis that you were ok with that. But there really are more questions than answers in your response.

 

[Federberg]

Dude, I know you like me, and we're friends. I've never done anything on this one except to ask you to clarify terms. If there's an ego issue, it's yours. Please remember who posted that video, and who's ego is on the line about it. Surely, it's yours. (And I know, "please don't call me Shirley.")

One more time. And yet again you're not making sense. In that post I directed you to, I conceded that perhaps I wasn't as clear as you needed me to be (so where is the ego. I'm the first to assert I have a healthy ego, it doesn't apply here sorry), even though knowing my previous posts you should have been equipped with enough context about my beliefs. Let's not kid ourselves this is all about your instinctive need to play identity politics, so you mistakenly went on the attack, hence your refusal to back down now. You keep asking for clarity when right there in that post I expanded on the purpose of my posting the video link. Since that post answers your questions - which we both know are just a way for you to try not to look like you have to back down (again ego!) - I have to assume that there is something else at play here, because I know you're far from stupid. At this point this just starts to look more and more silly. And boring..

 

[Horsa]

For sure is not always the case. And even if it was -- what is the problem with that? Let us say that someone counted and for all sports there are more people willing to watch the men's version rather than the women's. So what?

I've no problem with that or the fact we're different in some ways & like to celebrate our differences. I mean I cook, bake, do nail art & my make-up as well as wear dresses & have long hair & drink so-called ladies drinks when I go out, but since we supposedly got equal rights I also do what used to be seen as men's stuff. Equal rights have come a long way fortunately from the time when women got taught mainly only what they needed to know for their stereotypical role which was to stay at home & look after their husband, house & children but there are still a lot of changes that need to be made. I'm for equality but am also a big believer in meritocracy but also know that it doesn't always exist & isn't always feasible. I just thought that in some ways the 1st guy on the video acted like a male chauvinist. I don't think generalisations give the full story either.

 

[Horsa]

For sure is not always the case. And even if it was -- what is the problem with that? Let us say that someone counted and for all sports there are more people willing to watch the men's version rather than the women's. So what? At best it means that (following the capitalist logic) sportsmen on average should be paid more than sportswomen. It does not mean anything else. And we know that there are a lot of professions (probably all more "important" than professional sports) that women, on average, do better than men. The problem, IMO, is trying to look at all aspects of human life as competition among genders, and, specially trying to take general conclusions about the relations among man and woman out of viewer ratings in sports! Frankly, that's quite crazy, and when we engage in such debates we are kind of implicitly accepting this notion. That is exactly the game I do not want to play.



Best of 4! Good old Brit sense of humor...

The guy on the video made it sound like men always work harder & do better than women which I disagreed with. I agree with what you have to say. I guess I was angry with some of the comments he made so waited to calm down to say what I thought & thought I'd phrased things in a proper manner but obviously my emotions showed through. I'm not arguing with you or anyone else just saying what I think. I don't want to argue. I'm not an argumentative person. Although I think there are good points made which make sense in the video, others just took advantage of the fact that the person thought women were completely inferior to men. I'm a lady. I understood what was being said so it had to provoke a reaction so I disagree slightly when you said it was a crazy argument to have. I'm not saying we're better than men or being immature here. I know you're not saying we're inferior to men either. I don't want to play that type of game either.

Ha! Yes. That idea came from the argument on whether to up the women's game to 5 or drop the men's game to 3. I thought the easiest way to sort things out would be to split the difference which would be 4. Lol. Us Brits do have a sense of humour sometimes. Lol.

 

[mrzz]

You don't answer the question, though: why do you care if women in tennis get paid same as men?

I like that you recognize that, if you are bothered, you have some prejudice. But you leave that rather unexplored. You were "relieved" that it was only in tennis that you were ok with that. But there really are more questions than answers in your response.

It was only in tennis that I was not ok with it, not because of the equal pay in itself, but because all of the points we already raised and discussed. I instinctively reacted to a whole "moral" speech that was being preached at the wrong place and time. How can I say it in a yet different way? Gender prejudice is not behind the difference in prize money for men and women in tennis. So forcing equal pay is a "solution" to a non existing problem. Even the fact that (in majors) both tournaments are held together and there is no way you can tell the difference in audience/public interest does not holds itself. In that case, it should be equal pay for doubles too, and even for wheel chair tennis. They are all in the same ticket.

Believe me when I say that once you made the "question", I thought really hard about it. As I said, I convinced myself when I pictured all women in my workplace making more money than the men (it took me a while to have this idea). Once I realized that this situation really would not bother me, I was relieved to see there was no prejudice behind my reactions. But this is just me, if you tell me that a lot of guys don't like the idea of women making more money than men, I find it quite plausible.

It seems that you are sure that if I am so bothered (in fact I am not that bothered, just stating my opinion) by equal pay (in tennis), it must have some prejudice behind it. The best I can do is to tell you that it doesn't.

 

[mrzz]

I've no problem with that or the fact we're different in some ways & like to celebrate our differences. I mean I cook, bake, do nail art & my make-up as well as wear dresses & have long hair & drink so-called ladies drinks when I go out, but since we supposedly got equal rights I also do what used to be seen as men's stuff. Equal rights have come a long way fortunately from the time when women got taught mainly only what they needed to know for their stereotypical role which was to stay at home & look after their husband, house & children but there are still a lot of changes that need to be made. I'm for equality but am also a big believer in meritocracy but also know that it doesn't always exist & isn't always feasible. I just thought that in some ways the 1st guy on the video acted like a male chauvinist. I don't think generalisations give the full story either.

Yes, the guy on the video is a jerk (at least in my opinion). I saw other videos to confirm that. So I completely get that a lot of women will instinctively react to it. I never meant to defend him by any means.

 

[Horsa]

Yes, the guy on the video is a jerk (at least in my opinion). I saw other videos to confirm that. So I completely get that a lot of women will instinctively react to it. I never meant to defend him by any means.

I agree. I'd call him a male chauvinist pig. (Please excuse my language). I both admitted where he had points & where I totally disagreed with him when I aired my views.I can understand & agree with your points. Arguing about what goes on in tennis isn't important in everyday life. Arguing about equality in everyday life is.

 

[Moxie]

It was only in tennis that I was not ok with it, not because of the equal pay in itself, but because all of the points we already raised and discussed. I instinctively reacted to a whole "moral" speech that was being preached at the wrong place and time. How can I say it in a yet different way? Gender prejudice is not behind the difference in prize money for men and women in tennis. So forcing equal pay is a "solution" to a non existing problem. Even the fact that (in majors) both tournaments are held together and there is no way you can tell the difference in audience/public interest does not holds itself. In that case, it should be equal pay for doubles too, and even for wheel chair tennis. They are all in the same ticket.

Believe me when I say that once you made the "question", I thought really hard about it. As I said, I convinced myself when I pictured all women in my workplace making more money than the men (it took me a while to have this idea). Once I realized that this situation really would not bother me, I was relieved to see there was no prejudice behind my reactions. But this is just me, if you tell me that a lot of guys don't like the idea of women making more money than men, I find it quite plausible.

It seems that you are sure that if I am so bothered (in fact I am not that bothered, just stating my opinion) by equal pay (in tennis), it must have some prejudice behind it. The best I can do is to tell you that it doesn't.

"Gender prejudice" is not behind the difference in pay in tennis? In fact, it's not. Where men and women don't play together, the women get paid less. A fact that men around here seem to forget. Equal pay is not an existing problem? That, I would dispute, at least globally. It's a bit of a cheap gambit to put doubles and wheelchair tennis in for equal parts of the pot. We're talking about singles, here, and everyone knows that that's where the interest is, thereby the money. You can congratulate yourself for deciding that you'd be ok if women made even more money than you, in your field, but you know that's not the norm, right? And I don't even have to know what field you're in. Anyway, I appreciate your admitting that men don't like women making more money than men. As we see around here, and in these conversations, they don't even like them making the same.