Society/Culture Woke. Can you tell real from parody?

[Chief]

Rolled over to Part 2:

Society/Culture - Woke. Can you tell real from parody? - Part 2 -

Potatoes have no gender. And soon, nearly 70 years (sic), the name of Hasbro’s popular spud-shaped toy will reflect that: No more Mr. Potato Head. It’s just Potato Head. On Thursday, the company announced it would be rebranding the iconic quick-change toy to break away from traditional ideas...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Monkey King]

True, but the same gronks who ridicule women't sport on social media are the loudest ones talking about the integrity of women's sport on this issue. They arent the ones to listen to.

I don't see this as a transgender issue, rather as an intersectional issue. So I'd be more cautious with the labeling. It's an easy way to find oneself being a dick and miscategorizing people while missing the fact there are genuine points needing to be discussed.

 

[kickazz]

I don't ridicule women's sport but I do ridicule their claims for equal pay. In most sports the top women are at about the same level of physicality and skills as under 15 boys. In all other fields of life equal pay depends on equal performance. Yet there are women earning millions who could be beaten by young teenage boys.

Women getting smashed by men identifying as women is a different issue.

Surely the whole pay debate shouldn't focus on physicality or skill but more on ability to generate revenue?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

I don't see this as a transgender issue, rather as an intersectional issue. So I'd be more cautious with the labeling. It's an easy way to find oneself being a dick and miscategorizing people while missing the fact there are genuine points needing to be discussed.

There is. But it's not coming from the usuals who have no respect for womens sport.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Surely the whole pay debate shouldn't focus on physicality or skill but more on ability to generate revenue?

I agree, professional sport is reliant on a business model that depends on generating revenue. But there's an inherent structural bias against males generating that revenue, and being paid accordingly - because sport is split by biological sex. A young tennis player who is 300th in the male rankings would not get any media promotion even though he might beat Emma Raducanu who just won $2.5m in prize money for winning the US Open.

Even after that, there's not a level playing field.

Governments tip money into women's sport. Clubs and organisations that generate revenue from the men's side of their sport subsidise the women's game, for example, by offering free or heavily discounted tickets to spectators. Or employing the female players in support roles around the club such as physio or training assistants - without regard to their ability to generate revenue. Media organisations are keen to promote women's sport. The BBC regularly gives prominence to women's football despite its lack of appeal. A recent world cup qualifier got an attendance of 8,000 despite ticket prices of £10 for adults and £1 for kids. Women's sport has become a cheap way to keep the kids happy for an afternoon.

 

[Monkey King]

So you agree that the rich should pay more tax?

I don't. Just firstly, because government is a bit like my brother-in-law when it comes to handling money, which is not disastrous, but not so great.

My view is if government has to take increasingly greater money out of the kitty to support social programs after the game has been played and won, then that's basically an admission there is something intrinsically wrong with the game. So fix the ******* game.

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

NSFW language, but pretty much nails it.

 

[Eagle Wrath]

Surely the whole pay debate shouldn't focus on physicality or skill but more on ability to generate revenue?

Rhonda Rousey agrees as shown in this famous smack down of a feminist Aussie Journo.

 

[HairyO]

Surely the whole pay debate shouldn't focus on physicality or skill but more on ability to generate revenue?

Grand Slams for tennis are equal pay, but the tickets for the Sunday Men's final are almost always more than the Saturday Women's finals, not to mention TV audiences are generally higher for men (individual women are more popular so sometimes the ratings if they make the finals are higher). Over all of the various tournaments the men get 2 or 3 times as big an audience.

Nadal made a point about female models earning far more because far more people are interested in them, so if pay was solely based on interest then there would be no real case for complaints about pay.

Of course we cant use that argument for the AFLW because the ratings are tiny and there is not a lot of sponsorship - so the women would actually have to be paid less than they earn now.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Surely the whole pay debate shouldn't focus on physicality or skill but more on ability to generate revenue?

No, the best female soccer players should all be paid the same as Cristiano Ronaldo, even though there is a fraction of the money in women's soccer. Because that's equality!

Not sure where that money is going to come from but they're entitled to it nonetheless.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Grand Slams for tennis are equal pay, but the tickets for the Sunday Men's final are almost always more than the Saturday Women's finals, not to mention TV audiences are generally higher for men (individual women are more popular so sometimes the ratings if they make the finals are higher). Over all of the various tournaments the men get 2 or 3 times as big an audience.

Nadal made a point about female models earning far more because far more people are interested in them, so if pay was solely based on interest then there would be no real case for complaints about pay.

Of course we cant use that argument for the AFLW because the ratings are tiny and there is not a lot of sponsorship - so the women would actually have to be paid less than they earn now.

I'm OK with grand slams offering equal money for men and women. That is part of the appeal of the majors as a product - the men's and women's tours come together four times a year and it's a big deal. When you offer that as the pitch to broadcasters, advertisers etc, you can't then turn around and say "yeah but we all know the women are second fiddle here".

The men's game generates more revenue than the women's game overall and that reality is reflected at all the other tournaments. But at grand slams, the two products are presented as a package deal, so I'm fine with paying equal prize money.

 

[HairyO]

I'm OK with grand slams offering equal money for men and women. That is part of the appeal of the majors as a product - the men's and women's tours come together four times a year and it's a big deal. When you offer that as the pitch to broadcasters, advertisers etc, you can't then turn around and say "yeah but we all know the women are second fiddle here".

The men's game generates more revenue than the women's game overall and that reality is reflected at all the other tournaments. But at grand slams, the two products are presented as a package deal, so I'm fine with paying equal prize money.

Except the ticket prices are more for the Men's final in a grand slam, so even at a supposedly equal tournament they recognise the differences.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Except the ticket prices are more for the Men's final in a grand slam, so even at a supposedly equal tournament they recognise the differences.

You're conflating separate considerations. The tournament can set whatever prize money it wants. The tournament is "equal" in that sense. But the tickets are priced according to the market, and the demand for those tickets is not equal.

You might argue that the men's draw partially subsidises the women's draw at the grand slam tournaments. I wouldn't disagree. But if the tournament wants to give equal prize money, in line with the unique package of the grand slams, I don't think that's unreasonable. I actually think that's quite defensible.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Except the ticket prices are more for the Men's final in a grand slam, so even at a supposedly equal tournament they recognise the differences.

I prefer watching womens tennis.

They are less emotional, and dont throw as many tantrums,

 

[Frank Bunn]

Grand Slams for tennis are equal pay, but the tickets for the Sunday Men's final are almost always more than the Saturday Women's finals, not to mention TV audiences are generally higher for men (individual women are more popular so sometimes the ratings if they make the finals are higher). Over all of the various tournaments the men get 2 or 3 times as big an audience.

Nadal made a point about female models earning far more because far more people are interested in them, so if pay was solely based on interest then there would be no real case for complaints about pay.

Of course we cant use that argument for the AFLW because the ratings are tiny and there is not a lot of sponsorship - so the women would actually have to be paid less than they earn now.

And the women only play best of three sets. That's understandable as who would want to watch more than three sets of women's tennis? But longer games for the men mean more advertising revenue.

 

[the_interloper]

I don't ridicule women's sport but I do ridicule their claims for equal pay. In most sports the top women are at about the same level of physicality and skills as under 15 boys. In all other fields of life equal pay depends on equal performance. Yet there are women earning millions who could be beaten by young teenage boys.

Women getting smashed by men identifying as women is a different issue.

It's about who generates the most eyeballs. If you take combat sports as an example Jake Paul is earning shitloads more than many boxers who would beat the piss out of him, but people want to see him fight. It's not merit, it's about who generates revenue.

 

[Grin]

Snowflake is blaming others for your problems and wanting them to solve them for you in my eyes.

So like West Coast supporters?

 

[Scotland]

You're conflating separate considerations. The tournament can set whatever prize money it wants. The tournament is "equal" in that sense. But the tickets are priced according to the market, and the demand for those tickets is not equal.

You might argue that the men's draw partially subsidises the women's draw at the grand slam tournaments. I wouldn't disagree. But if the tournament wants to give equal prize money, in line with the unique package of the grand slams, I don't think that's unreasonable. I actually think that's quite defensible.

Wimbledon and the French Open were the last to introduce equal prize money in 2007. That's their prerogative, but everyone knows it's a PR exercise and in no way reflects quality of competition or commercial realities.

If you lose in the first round of the men's or women's singles at the AO you pocket $100k. If you win the mixed doubles tournament, you get $75k. You have to play 4 matches in the doubles tournament to make the same money as playing one in the singles. The doubles tournaments are shorter, but if I was the Woodies I would be feeling pretty unappreciated making less than a quarter of the women's singles winner - and then splitting it two ways.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Wimbledon and the French Open were the last to introduce equal prize money in 2007. That's their prerogative, but everyone knows it's a PR exercise and in no way reflects quality of competition or commercial realities.

That's fine. You call it a PR exercise. I say it reflects the unique status of the grand slams. That unique status is also one of the commercial realities, and it contributes to the appeal of those four tournaments for broadcasters, advertisers etc.

I bet a lot of folks tune in to tennis four times a year without necessarily following the tour all year round. The grand slams are the showpiece events, and that's when the men's tour and the women's tour come together. Having them play alongside each other is a big part of the appeal of those tournaments. You either say to the women "nah you girls are just the warm-up act, you're still second fiddle" or you treat them as the other side of the same coin, literally.

If you lose in the first round of the men's or women's singles at the AO you pocket $100k. If you win the mixed doubles tournament, you get $75k. You have to play 4 matches in the doubles tournament to make the same money as playing one in the singles. The doubles tournaments are shorter, but if I was the Woodies I would be feeling pretty unappreciated making less than a quarter of the women's singles winner - and then splitting it two ways.

Well, that's about the lack of respect for doubles generally, rather than anything gendered. The sport values singles more than doubles by a long way, and that's not really surprising.

 

[Chief]

but everyone knows it's a PR exercise and in no way reflects

It is interesting that anyone really cares that they get equal prize money.

Why stop at gender? Should the prize money be based solely on the popularity of each player? A scale based on how popular the individual player is, determined by TV ratings and web site clicks and likes on the tournament's social accounts? If players A and B play in the final, player A - who is more popular by 15% - gets 15% more prize money than player B?

 

[Leeda]

How many racial identities are there? Is it finite? Is there a spectrum?

You see yourself as special…tis why you lodged this warnker of a thought provoking rubbish…
Boom

 

[Marcel Proust]

‘They were very strong’: Debate rages as all-boys team DOMINATES state netball competition

Netball Queensland has launched a passionate defence of the decision to allow the team to compete in the tournament alongside girls.

7news.com.au

 

[Sweet Jesus]

#metoo comes for James Bond.

Don't worry, I'm sure in the new film there will be a Strong Female Character who completely dominates and emasculates him.

Meanwhile, we really need to talk about Wolverine's toxic masculinity. His anger makes everyone psychologically unsafe.

James Bond was ‘basically’ a rapist in early films, says No Time to Die director

Cary Fukunaga cites scene from Thunderball that ‘wouldn’t fly today’ as new film aims to redress franchise’s gender politics

www.theguardian.com

 

[Chief]

‘They were very strong’: Debate rages as all-boys team DOMINATES state netball competition

Netball Queensland has launched a passionate defence of the decision to allow the team to compete in the tournament alongside girls.

7news.com.au

“
“We want to make clear that there is a place for everyone in our sport,” it said in a statement on Thursday.

“We stand by the decision to choose inclusion over exclusion. And, to invite the Queensland Suns to return to the State Titles given they have limited opportunities to play in a high performance environment due to low participation numbers and limited pathways.

“We recognise that change is sometimes uncomfortable, and we are buoyed by the support of our wider netball community who are embracing men and boys in competition formats and have done so for some time in a mixed netball capacity.”

 

[Carringbush2010]

#metoo comes for James Bond.

Don't worry, I'm sure in the new film there will be a Strong Female Character who completely dominates and emasculates him.

Meanwhile, we really need to talk about Wolverine's toxic masculinity. His anger makes everyone psychologically unsafe.

James Bond was ‘basically’ a rapist in early films, says No Time to Die director

Cary Fukunaga cites scene from Thunderball that ‘wouldn’t fly today’ as new film aims to redress franchise’s gender politics

www.theguardian.com

Hmmm yes, in other news water is wet. That article is a captain obvious.

Wolverine, well he's not not your average person on the street is he, I mean not everyone has werewolf dna (which by the way and apologies for the obvious that werewolves only exist in mind and not in reality) nor the accompanied rage that werewolves apparently have.

Oh and I don't think there'll be many worried about the 'new' direction that Bond films are taking, apart from the 70+ yo 'conserve everything from back in my day' set.

 

[Chief]

#metoo comes for James Bond.

I watched it with my son years ago and I was a bit uncomfortable - he was a ******* psychopath.

You’re kidding yourself if you think the early stuff isn’t very, very dated.