Society/Culture Feminism part 1 - continued in part 2

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Tennis is a sport where a man who looks like Damien Peverill is drooled over by women because he can afford Rolexes.

Where is your info for this claim?

 

[clogged]

Where is your info for this claim?

Interaction with other humans, especially women.

 

[blackcat]

Tennis is a sport where a man who looks like Damien Peverill is drooled over by women because he can afford Rolexes.

no, Damien Peverill with a bandana.

the only tennis player who could pull off a bandana was Aaron Krickstein <emoji bruce springsteen dancing in the dark>

 

[AngryRanga]

Very harsh on Federer...

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Interaction with other humans, especially women.

What do you think this observation tells you about women?

 

[blackcat]

Hence the exponentially growing worldwide phenomenon of MGTOW. Many men are doing a cost/benefit analysis when it comes to marriage, LTR's and shacking up and seeing that it's not worth it, and thus foregoing this for a life of chosen bachelorhood. Some chose minimal interaction with women that can't be avoided, like in the professional environment, and some choose the root'n'boot game. No matter which of these men choose, both involve not using their resources on women. These men give women the equality they've been crying out for and make them pay their own way.

If men think western women aren't the way to go and instead think Asian women are the answer because they're supposedly different, here's a little taste of Asian hypergamy.

tesse, please explain to robert allenby the root'n'boot technique. cos he only came away with anal fissure that ned beatty and deliverance director would be proud of
#appallachianmountainmen

 

[blackcat]

What do you think this observation tells you about women?

they are as superficial as men. And this will be more visible as the population is put on an even playing field. women are humans afterall, and share the same motivation

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

they are as superficial as men. And this will be more visible as the population is put on an even playing field. women are humans afterall, and share the same motivation

...and this is based off the Federer watch ad?

 

[blackcat]

Very harsh on Federer...

gotta disagree, Peverill was being given an eye test then a hypnosis, and he had to do the cross eyed for his eye test, and then he was lined up for the player portraits. a little like the steroid joke by ahmed saad. he had to cross eye.

if Federer had to do the cross eye, he would be just as but ugly. but his rolex endorsement. and 250 million in his bankbalance. Even the bankrupt undies seller Bjorn Bjorg who also wore headbands, did not make this dough. Tho I think Bjorg was a successfull pantsmen. Mirka =/= successful panstman.

 

[blackcat]

...and this is based off the Federer watch ad?

sportsmen can be butt ugly, but they still have groupies and camp followers at their door. A little like "rockstars".

men are the binary whore to their groupie (individual). And there are walking petrie dishes of syphilus like buddy and josh gibson.
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Syphilis

 

[cartwright]

they are as superficial as men. And this will be more visible as the population is put on an even playing field. women are humans afterall, and share the same motivation

Some can be.


Some aren't.

But you knew that.

 

[clogged]

Very harsh on Federer...

You've probably picked the best Federer pic on the net. When he smiles he's a minger.

 

[blackcat]

Some can be.


Some aren't.

But you knew that.

same as men.

 

[cartwright]

same as men.

Right

im still sure I'll be waiting a while to see a male tennis player twirl on the court, or be asked to

Even though they get more in sponsorship $$$ from Nike

 

[blackcat]

Right

im still sure I'll be waiting a while to see a male tennis player twirl on the court, or be asked to

Even though they get more in sponsorship $$$ from Nike

actually, the Williams sisters have been the best remunerated with their deals with Puma Reebok and Nike. They have made more than men. Because it is a free market, and their management at IMG will negotiate the best deal.

But then they will appeal to the Grand Slams, for equal prizemoney.

when Michael Lewis wrote in Moneyball about the Oakland A's front office, and the Harvard MBAs and their metrics and KPIs and science, I wonder what Deloitte Access Economics would value the 3 set women in the Grand Slams.

see the Williams sisters want the free market being able to dictate their contracts with their sports shoe sponsor. I agree.

But they pull out the equality card at the Grand Slam for prizemoney. Now, if they are worth more than men, I would pay them more for their prizemoney at the end of the tournament. I would be happy to pay them more. They actually might be worth more than men, for one of the issues we are discussing, sex appeal.
And I am note sure how Delloites would sum the value of women v men, with TV and other revenue streams for the slam, obviously there will be myriad of inputs, ratings etc. But the time that the women are playing, and are watched, are much less than men because of the 3 set rules. I have not thought of affirmative action and inverse discrimation on this issue currently, and frankly, i have given it tooo much oxygen as it is.

but my point on williams sisters, they want one rule that will favour them over men, free market compensation, then they wish to invoke sex equality, when one could easily argue, an equality would value the free market stake, and not to favour one sex above the other wrt the free market. and yes, i have considered tennis legacy rules, and 3 set limits for women.

women have benefited out of men being the primary revenue stream in tennis. And yes, i know the paradox, this is a virtue of society at large inequality, and tennis traditionally being a sport patronised by men and especially in the pro ranks.

I am going back decades antecedent BillyJean King ok. And I have acknowledged legacy inequality, and have not made a considered analysis on the reverse discrimination or affirmative action on compensation and prizemoney. Williams sisters benefit on both sides. And they did come from negro and slave lineage, so one could say swings and roundabouts that they are benefiting from their ancestors indenture

 

[clogged]

Right

im still sure I'll be waiting a while to see a male tennis player twirl on the court, or be asked to

Even though they get more in sponsorship $$$ from Nike

Men's tennis is as much about the twirl. Just a different kind.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

Right

im still sure I'll be waiting a while to see a male tennis player twirl on the court, or be asked to

Even though they get more in sponsorship $$$ from Nike

How is being asked to twirl any different/worse then this proposition?

I want to be served beer from muscly shirtless men, who can be proud that they can serve beer...

 

[AngryRanga]

How is being asked to twirl any different then this?

Well muscly shirtless men serving beer are being paid to be muscly shirtless men serving beer. Bouchard's profession is a tennis player? I think it's a bit different if your profession is based off being attractive.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

Well muscly shirtless men serving beer are being paid to be muscly shirtless men serving beer. Bouchard's profession is a tennis player? I think it's a bit different if your profession is based off being attractive.

The sentiment is still the same.

 

[Lester Burnham]

actually, the Williams sisters have been the best remunerated with their deals with Puma Reebok and Nike. They have made more than men. Because it is a free market, and their management at IMG will negotiate the best deal.

But then they will appeal to the Grand Slams, for equal prizemoney.

If the women want equal prize money to the men then put men and women in the same competition - see how they fare.

 

[blackcat]

Well muscly shirtless men serving beer are being paid to be muscly shirtless men serving beer. Bouchard's profession is a tennis player? I think it's a bit different if your profession is based off being attractive.

dont dress in Nike one million a year dress then.

putting on the dress, accedes an admission to the commercial space SX SLS

 

[cartwright]

actually, the Williams sisters have been the best remunerated with their deals with Puma Reebok and Nike. They have made more than men. Because it is a free market, and their management at IMG will negotiate the best deal.

But then they will appeal to the Grand Slams, for equal prizemoney.

when Michael Lewis wrote in Moneyball about the Oakland A's front office, and the Harvard MBAs and their metrics and KPIs and science, I wonder what Deloitte Access Economics would value the 3 set women in the Grand Slams.

see the Williams sisters want the free market being able to dictate their contracts with their sports shoe sponsor. I agree.

But they pull out the equality card at the Grand Slam for prizemoney. Now, if they are worth more than men, I would pay them more for their prizemoney at the end of the tournament. I would be happy to pay them more. They actually might be worth more than men, for one of the issues we are discussing, sex appeal.
And I am nore sure how Delloites would sum the value of women v men, with TV and other revenue streams for the slam, obviously there will be myriad of inputs, ratings etc. But the time that the women are playing, and are watched, are much less than men because of the 3 set rules. I have not thought of affirmative action and inverse discrimation on this issue currently, and frankly, i have given it tooo much oxygen as it is.

but my point on williams sisters, they want one rule that will favour them over men, free market compensation, then they wish to invoke sex equality, when one could easily argue, an equality would value the free market stake, and not to favour one sex above the other wrt the free market. mand yes, i have considered tennis legacy rules, and 3 set limits for women.

women have benefited out of men being the primary revenue stream in tennis. And yes, i know the paradox, this is a virtue of society at large inequality, and tennis traditionally being a sport patronised by men and especially in the pro ranks.

I am going back decades antecedent BillyJean King ok. And I have acknowledged legacy inequality, and have not made a considered analysis on the reverse discrimination or affirmative action on compensation and prizemoney. Williams sisters benefit on both sides. And they did come from negro and slave lineage, so one could say swings and roundabouts that they are benefiting from their ancestors indenture

hmm. so because grand slams are paying equal prize money, combined with free market for sponsorship, the women players should expect the possibility to be objectified.... ?!

I think this issue is done, we can acknowledge it was out of line. We know that a man will never have to twirl, and that out of all the issues that could be discussed, this is probably at the lower end.

 

[blackcat]

hmm. so because grand slams are paying equal prize money, combined with free market for sponsorship, the women players should expect the possibility to be objectified.... ?!

I think this issue is done, we can acknowledge it was out of line. We know that a man will never have to twirl, and that out of all the issues that could be discussed, this is probably at the lower end.

I want to be fair about Genie's agency and ask her the question, and not her management the question.

If Nike put this dress on you and leverage your sex and youthful appeal, and pay you 1 million a year, are you willing to do a "degree" of flirtation and advertisement for this dress, with this dress on.

Will you have the second tennis ball in the internal pocket in the dress, instead of the second balls being in the ballgirls or ballboys pockets, because for the second ball, you have to lift, hike up the skirt, and people can see some underwear when you do this. one or the other. If you agree to carry the second tennis ball, in your pocket, for the second serve, we will pay you an extra 100 thousand. Or, if you dont take the second ball in your pocket and utilise the ball boys or ball girls, the contract is only 900k. yes, i know that would be a 200k difference, i meant, just a 100k difference. first, compulsory the ball in the underwear, therefore, penalty of 100k if no ball in the internal pocket.

this is how the negotiation between Nike and IMG for Genie's signature will go down.

sex sells. I dont make the rules or norms.

 

[blackcat]

 

[cartwright]

I want to be fair about Genie's agency and ask her the question, and not her management the question.

If Nike put this dress on you and leverage your sex and youthful appeal, and pay you 1 million a year, are you willing to do a "degree" of flirtation and advertisement for this dress, with this dress on.

Will you have the second tennis ball in the internal pocket in the dress, instead of the second balls being in the ballgirls or ballboys pockets, because for the second ball, you have to lift, hike up the skirt, and people can see some underwear when you do this.

If you agree to carry the second tennis ball, in your pocket, for the second serve, we will pay you an extra 100 thousand. Or, if you dont take the second ball in your pocket and utilise the ball boys or ball girls, the contract is only 900k.


this is how the negotiation between Nike and IMG for Genie's signature will go down.

sex sells. I dont make the rules or norms.

For only one gender though, yes?
Will Nadal be asked the same?