Play Nice Hannah Mouncey, transgender AFLW hopeful

[PoppedCorn]

I have no idea what you're on about
U said she would lose to a trained mma fighter easily
I'm saying she is employed by the UFC, she is a fighter, and from memory most fighters win and lose

She has every chance of beating a trained mma fighter seeing as she is one


I'm well aware of Cristianes history

 

[Masher]

Bollocks.

Williams is the top competitor in a comp that makes quite a lot of money. Hence, she gets the lion's share of the prize money in that comp.

200th ranked man is 200th in his comp, and gets prize money accordingly.

For him to get more than Williams means he is getting some of the women's tour prize money. That's the only way it could happen.

Think about your proposition rationally for a minute (please, try).

The objection from men to players in the AFLW being paid is that the comp doesn't generate profit. Male players play in a comp that generates a lot of money, that's why they get the big bucks. It is PC gone mad to expect female players to be paid by organisations that make their money of male comps.

The women's tennis tour generates a lot of income, meaning, if you dominate that tour, your going to make a lot of money.

This suddenly is wrong, it's now not reward for generating the money, it had to be split so every man that can beat Serena gets more than she does, irrespective of the fact they have jack s**t to do with helping generate that money, in either the men's or women's comp.

Go have a snowflake sooky somewhere else.


Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

You are biased and support women who don't deserve to be paid for their ability compared to a man

Let the men and woman play at different months and you will see the truth. The crowds will eventually go down in Woman's tennis

 

[red+black]

I could give my 2c about how overpaid women tennis players are

 

[jatz14]

You are biased and support women who don't deserve to be paid for their ability compared to a man

Let the men and woman play at different months and you will see the truth. The crowds will eventually go down in Woman's tennis

lol. Dig up fool.

The WTA and the ATP are separate tours, a lot of their events are stand alone already. Even the events where men and women play the same tournament, they are generally run as separate events, some times they are consecutive, ie one is first, and then when it is over, the other plays, or at different times, or different courts. The points value for the respective tours are different, so an important mens event worth a lot of points, might be a minor womens event.

Exceptions are the majors, only they are not exceptions, as they are not ATP or WTA events, they are totally controlled by the respective majors bodies. So, the female prize money at the Australian open isn't dictated by the WTA, its determined by the Australian open.

Events draw crowds based on the names that play in them. Minor tournaments with unknown players draw no crowds, but this is true of men as well as women. Serena is a draw, a womens event she and the other top players play in will draw more attention and sponsorship than a male tournament composed of male players ranked in the 200s.

Women do not deserve to be paid as much as men because mens sport draws the crowds, the sponsors, the dollars, and women should only be paid when their sports makes money.
Only, according to Masher, they shouldn't be paid even then. A women shouldn't be paid regardless how much money she brings into the sport unless she can beat an arbitrarily ranked man in that sport. Is that a correct summation?

You obviously know who the big names are in female tennis, could you name the 200th ranked man without googling it?

I bet you cannot. And I know why you cannot. No one gives a * about him. Whatever he is paid, its to much.
Serena generates the cash, Serena makes the cash.
Mister 200 generates * all, Mr 200 makes * all. Simple.

 

[jatz14]

I could give my 2c about how overpaid women tennis players are

like all sports, the top players are paid based on what the sport generates and can afford. I would consider Baseball players and male golfers grossly overpaid, but, they are paid a portion of what the sport generates, so I have no reason to complain really. Just as you dont. It has nothing to do with what people think their ability is worth, and everything about how much the sport generates.

Have you noticed this is a complete reversal of the arguments.

I am usually arguing female football players should be paid, against people saying, sports people should get paid on the basis of what the sport makes.

 

[red+black]

like all sports, the top players are paid based on what the sport generates and can afford. I would consider Baseball players and male golfers grossly overpaid, but, they are paid a portion of what the sport generates, so I have no reason to complain really. Just as you dont. It has nothing to do with what people think their ability is worth, and everything about how much the sport generates.

The WTA does not pay women the same as men because the women's tour does not generate as much interest, advertising or revenue as the men's tour. The only times women are paid the same as the men is when they compete at the same event, such as the 4 slams, Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid. Male tennis players DO have something to complain about because they are subsidising the women.

 

[MacMum]

I could give my 2c about how overpaid women tennis players are

...and I would agree with you if you did give your views.

 

[jatz14]

The WTA does not pay women the same as men because the women's tour does not generate as much interest, advertising or revenue as the men's tour. The only times women are paid the same as the men is when they compete at the same event, such as the 4 slams, Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid. Male tennis players DO have something to complain about because they are subsidising the women.

Most of those events are not run by the tours. The prize money is allocated by the event out of the revenue the event generates. A lot of the income something like the Australian open generates is for the event, not the men's games, or the women's games specifically.

None of which is relevant as this entire argument is on the proposition put forward, that if Serena Williams cannot beat the 200th ranked man, then she should not earn more than that player, and the fact she does shows bias against men. This is irrespective of how much money the women's tour makes, or is bought in by Serena.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[red+black]

Serena is better in her sport, women’s tennis, than most men in their sport, men’s tennis, and naturally deserves to earn more than them.

To those that suggest that there is a gender spectrum, I’m not sure what solutions exist for competitive sport.

 

[Bostonian]

like all sports, the top players are paid based on what the sport generates and can afford. I would consider Baseball players and male golfers grossly overpaid, but, they are paid a portion of what the sport generates, so I have no reason to complain really. Just as you dont. It has nothing to do with what people think their ability is worth, and everything about how much the sport generates.

Actually it was a bunch of feminist whiners and activists that eventually saw women be paid as much as the men for far less work in the majors in tennis.

These same styled people are now trying it on with the WNBA.

Whenever feminists get involved in sports it turns the sport into a political football pardon the pun and turns certain people away or against it.

I remember they tried that s**t when Rousey was champion. She shut that s**t down quickly.

AFLW needs to be very careful it doesn't let those kind of people become involved in any shape, way or form or the competition will suffer heavily from their involvement and the garbage they would push.

 

[Masher]

Serena is better in her sport, women’s tennis, than most men in their sport, men’s tennis, and naturally deserves to earn more than them.

To those that suggest that there is a gender spectrum, I’m not sure what solutions exist for competitive sport.

Why does she naturally deserve more than them - because she is the best female...isn't that sexist

Why don't we try that when you need major surgery and you are allocated the best female surgeon but she is no.50 compared to 49 better male suregoens.
You don't get a say whether you can have the 49 males and you also get to pay more for the surgery since she is the best female surgeon

Lets keep paying people whether male or female the same or better wages when they work less and not as good at their task

 

[red+black]

^good luck with your argument and applying it to sport. Write an article somewhere and see how much support you get.

 

[jatz14]

Why does she naturally deserve more than them - because she is the best female...isn't that sexist

Why don't we try that when you need major surgery and you are allocated the best female surgeon but she is no.50 compared to 49 better male suregoens.
You don't get a say whether you can have the 49 males and you also get to pay more for the surgery since she is the best female surgeon

Lets keep paying people whether male or female the same or better wages when they work less and not as good at their task

Lol. No. Your comparison is stupid and the complete opposite of most arguments against women receiving equal pay for sport.

As Bostonian points out in the previous post, it is only a relative handful of joint events where prize money is equal, which was achieved through politics as much as anything. Most events the prize money is separate. Most events, the EVENTS are separate. Serena wins the money she does because that's what the WTA events generate.

The argument against WNBA players getting more is their pay should be dictated by what the WNBA earns, not what the NBA earns.

For women's tennis, which does generate a fair amount, you are arguing women's pay should not be dictated by what the WTA earns, but by what a lowly ranked man earns.

Surgeons do not operate in a gendered industry, men and women operate in the same space. The comparison shows you have nothing to back up your position other than annoyance at the idea of women getting the same pay as men.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[jatz14]

Actually it was a bunch of feminist whiners and activists that eventually saw women be paid as much as the men for far less work in the majors in tennis.

These same styled people are now trying it on with the WNBA.

Whenever feminists get involved in sports it turns the sport into a political football pardon the pun and turns certain people away or against it.

I remember they tried that s**t when Rousey was champion. She shut that s**t down quickly.

AFLW needs to be very careful it doesn't let those kind of people become involved in any shape, way or form or the competition will suffer heavily from their involvement and the garbage they would push.

I agree with you. AFLW has already attracted commentary from people who clearly only view the sport through the prism of gendered politics. However, we cannot dismiss their complaints out of hand (as much as a lot of what they say is both grating and irrational).

For the majors, criticism from feminists forced the majors to defend their position, which they struggled to do, because their position was as gendered and biased as the feminists.

A lot of the income these events generate is not broken down to 'mens money and women's money'. Sponsoring companies want to be associated with the prestige of the event. The official water supplier for instance is not saying, 65% of our money is for the men.

So if the money is not coming in based on gender, on what basis is it going out based on gender? The majors never had a good answer for this other than, we value men's tennis more.

However, if companies are paying for the prestige of the event, then politics absolutely plays a part in the value. If the politics are bad, it diminishes the value of the event

Make no mistake, it's politics that put the pressure on the events, but the decision was commercial.

It's an argument I don't really like, but in a cut throat commercial world, is the reality.

College football generates a huge amount of money, but players get nothing. Americans justify it on the basis that they get free college, but this is a fraction the value a pro in a comp like that would receive. They get not much because they cannot apply the pressure to get more.

This is where payments are determined, what pressure can be applied to force higher payments verse the pressures to pay less. This has always been the basis of what sports people receive, it is never based on 'merit', or 'deserve'.

If the AFL is to stingy in negotiations with players, it risks a strike, which would be catestrophic. If players are to demanding, it damages the league, which is their bread and butter. It's achieving a balance between these 2 that determines pay.

Women's Sports people historically have lacked the levers to apply pressure to force higher pay, even when the sport can afford it. That women's sports earn less is a big part of it, but it's also that in many cases, it's seen as the second, less important comp. The AFLW players cannot demand more because the AFL is much less concerned about them striking, not because the league doesn't make money. The AFL could afford to pay them more, they just don't have the means to apply sufficient pressure to make them pay it

So in this sense, it doesn't matter how the pressure was applied to make the majors pay women more. The equilibrium still holds true. If to much was demanded, they wouldn't pay. If to little was paid, the players go elsewhere.

A good comparison is the Aussie open. At one point it was struggling. A lot of the best players skipped it. It was the wrong time of the year, it was to hot, it was poorly paid. There was even talk of stripping it of its status as a major. This applied huge pressure, and one of the outcomes was it became the highest paying major.

Approaching sponsors and saying, do you really want to be associated with a sexist event, and having the sponsors approaching the open saying, this isn't good for our brand, do something about it, is applying pressure, and the response was to lift women's prize money. They didn't have to, this was a commercial decision between the cost of paying women more, and the cost of not.

The proof is also in the pudding as they say. What is the detrimental cost to the open of doing this? I cannot really see one. Men's pay is high, it didn't come down, it didn't even slow down in going up. So people may argue that the men are subsidising the women, there is no evidence it has cost one male player a cent.

The feel good factor in trumpeting 'equal pay' keeps sponsors happy, may induce them to pay more, may attract new sponsors. It certainly hasn't hurt.

So why does it upset so many people that the Open pays women the same?

If the Open paid women less, would we have a better Open? Would the men benefit?

On the principal that I cannot in a negotiation force you to pay more than you are willing, where walking away is an option, but I can fail to make you pay as much as you are willing if I cannot find the right incentive, then a sport paying more due to feminists probably could have always paid more. They had just been able to get away with paying less up to then.



Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[Masher]

Surgeons do not operate in a gendered industry, men and women operate in the same space. The comparison shows you have nothing to back up your position other than annoyance at the idea of women getting the same pay as men.

Woman should only get equal pay if they can produce the same results under the same conditions as men ..isn't that what women like you have been whining about

You are the one who has been exposed as a hypocrite
For decades women have declared they want the same treatment, same pay, same work , same standards etc etc but in reality there is a constant changing of the goalposts to suit the woman's agenda

All woman's sport should stand on their own merits WITHOUT piggy backing on men's itinenary.
Let the women's tennis have their own calendar and agenda separate to men and let them stand on their own - You are too afraid to do that as you know eventually the attendance will decrease as well as interest

As for the AFLW which is a z rate competition that should run its own program without forcing itself onto the public

 

[Masher]

^good luck with your argument and applying it to sport. Write an article somewhere and see how much support you get.

That's because the feminists and male snowflakes want everything decked in their favour who scream and yell 'sexism' to get their way and everyone is too cowardly to expose the hypocrisy.

At the beginning all the feminists wanted equality but when they realised in many areas they couldn't compete they changed the rules and goalposts

 

[Bostonian]

I agree with you. AFLW has already attracted commentary from people who clearly only view the sport through the prism of gendered politics. However, we cannot dismiss their complaints out of hand (as much as a lot of what they say is both grating and irrational).

For the majors, criticism from feminists forced the majors to defend their position, which they struggled to do, because their position was as gendered and biased as the feminists.

A lot of the income these events generate is not broken down to 'mens money and women's money'. Sponsoring companies want to be associated with the prestige of the event. The official water supplier for instance is not saying, 65% of our money is for the men.

So if the money is not coming in based on gender, on what basis is it going out based on gender? The majors never had a good answer for this other than, we value men's tennis more.

However, if companies are paying for the prestige of the event, then politics absolutely plays a part in the value. If the politics are bad, it diminishes the value of the event

Make no mistake, it's politics that put the pressure on the events, but the decision was commercial.

It's an argument I don't really like, but in a cut throat commercial world, is the reality.

College football generates a huge amount of money, but players get nothing. Americans justify it on the basis that they get free college, but this is a fraction the value a pro in a comp like that would receive. They get not much because they cannot apply the pressure to get more.

This is where payments are determined, what pressure can be applied to force higher payments verse the pressures to pay less. This has always been the basis of what sports people receive, it is never based on 'merit', or 'deserve'.

If the AFL is to stingy in negotiations with players, it risks a strike, which would be catestrophic. If players are to demanding, it damages the league, which is their bread and butter. It's achieving a balance between these 2 that determines pay.

Women's Sports people historically have lacked the levers to apply pressure to force higher pay, even when the sport can afford it. That women's sports earn less is a big part of it, but it's also that in many cases, it's seen as the second, less important comp. The AFLW players cannot demand more because the AFL is much less concerned about them striking, not because the league doesn't make money. The AFL could afford to pay them more, they just don't have the means to apply sufficient pressure to make them pay it

So in this sense, it doesn't matter how the pressure was applied to make the majors pay women more. The equilibrium still holds true. If to much was demanded, they wouldn't pay. If to little was paid, the players go elsewhere.

A good comparison is the Aussie open. At one point it was struggling. A lot of the best players skipped it. It was the wrong time of the year, it was to hot, it was poorly paid. There was even talk of stripping it of its status as a major. This applied huge pressure, and one of the outcomes was it became the highest paying major.

Approaching sponsors and saying, do you really want to be associated with a sexist event, and having the sponsors approaching the open saying, this isn't good for our brand, do something about it, is applying pressure, and the response was to lift women's prize money. They didn't have to, this was a commercial decision between the cost of paying women more, and the cost of not.

The proof is also in the pudding as they say. What is the detrimental cost to the open of doing this? I cannot really see one. Men's pay is high, it didn't come down, it didn't even slow down in going up. So people may argue that the men are subsidising the women, there is no evidence it has cost one male player a cent.

The feel good factor in trumpeting 'equal pay' keeps sponsors happy, may induce them to pay more, may attract new sponsors. It certainly hasn't hurt.

So why does it upset so many people that the Open pays women the same?

If the Open paid women less, would we have a better Open? Would the men benefit?

On the principal that I cannot in a negotiation force you to pay more than you are willing, where walking away is an option, but I can fail to make you pay as much as you are willing if I cannot find the right incentive, then a sport paying more due to feminists probably could have always paid more. They had just been able to get away with paying less up to then.



Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

Women were paid less in tennis because they play a lot less.

The prize money they receive now isn't based on their output. It's based on their gender in the name of some warped equality argument. Equal pay for equal work, isn't that what the feminists cry?

Of course in any instance where there is disparity the other way it's never addressed or taken seriously.

 

[jatz14]

Woman should only get equal pay if they can produce the same results under the same conditions as men ..isn't that what women like you have been whining about

You are the one who has been exposed as a hypocrite
For decades women have declared they want the same treatment, same pay, same work , same standards etc etc but in reality there is a constant changing of the goalposts to suit the woman's agenda

All woman's sport should stand on their own merits WITHOUT piggy backing on men's itinenary.
Let the women's tennis have their own calendar and agenda separate to men and let them stand on their own - You are too afraid to do that as you know eventually the attendance will decrease as well as interest

As for the AFLW which is a z rate competition it suits z rate footy fans like yourself

Lol,

You are making yourself look like a fool. You should really stop.

 

[jatz14]

Women were paid less in tennis because they play a lot less.

The prize money they receive now isn't based on their output. It's based on their gender in the named to some warped equality argument.

The trouble with this argument is in any instance where there is disparity the other way it's never addressed or taken seriously.

It was never based on output, and isnt now based on gender, at least no more than mens is based on gender. It was always based on the tours capacity and willingness to pay.

 

[Masher]

Lol,

You are making yourself look like a fool. You should really stop.

No I'm not....I am exposing your hypocrisy and you don't like it
All your words are nothing but spin not matter how you try to sound like you know what you are talking about - you want to control the rules and the goalposts

 

[Masher]

It was never based on output, and isnt now based on gender, at least no more than mens is based on gender. It was always based on the tours capacity and willingness to pay.

Yawn....you like believing your own lies

 

[Bostonian]

It was never based on output, and isnt now based on gender, at least no more than mens is based on gender. It was always based on the tours capacity and willingness to pay.

And due to those outside influences they are now overpaid.

 

[jatz14]

Woman should only get equal pay if they can produce the same results under the same conditions as men ..isn't that what women like you have been whining about

You are the one who has been exposed as a hypocrite
For decades women have declared they want the same treatment, same pay, same work , same standards etc etc but in reality there is a constant changing of the goalposts to suit the woman's agenda

All woman's sport should stand on their own merits WITHOUT piggy backing on men's itinenary.
Let the women's tennis have their own calendar and agenda separate to men and let them stand on their own - You are too afraid to do that as you know eventually the attendance will decrease as well as interest

As for the AFLW which is a z rate competition it suits z rate footy fans like yourself

Lets have some fun.

Firstly, I have a Freo AFLW player in my avatar. However, I am neither a Freo supporter or female.

Let the womens tennis have their own calendar. The WTA not only has had its own calendar for something like half a century, its a completely different organisation to mens tennis you ignorant twat. Waiting with baited breath for attendance and interest to decrease. There are a number of events held at the same place, but even they are actually different events for the mens and womens tour. There are a number of events like the majors that are co events, but these are held outside the tours, the prize money in these events is determined by the event, not the WTA, not feminists.

They do not get the same pay, outside a handful of events with equal pay, pay is totally separate, and the women get less than the men because the womens tour generates less income than the mens. Serena has earned a lot less than a man with an equivalent career in the mens tour would have earned. She has however earned more than a man not very good at tennis in comparison to his peers would have earned. I find the degree to which this makes you offended hilarious, along with your inability to offer a rational explanation as to why.

z rate footy - oooh, cutting. You should let the AFL know, I am sure they will axe it when they find out.

Edit: I didn't use the term offended here, I used a different, more accurate and descriptive term, which the new BF has substituted. I leave it to you to imagine what it would be.

 

[jatz14]

And due to those outside influences they are now overpaid.

How would you determine fairly paid, given the circumstances. Is there a formula?

 

[Masher]

As I said feminism and male snowflakes like yourself have changed the goalposts and are not impartial