Trail Blazer Posted August 6, 2020 Share Posted August 6, 2020 25 minutes ago, SincereOnlineGuy said: Uh, what "men" ??? Clever, vague wording there... I was referring to their male compatriots, USA men's national soccer team. I thought it was pretty obvious what I was referring to. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
basil67 Posted August 6, 2020 Share Posted August 6, 2020 1 hour ago, Trail Blazer said: Well, to start with, women only play three sets instead of five... And yeah, there's that funny thing called testosterone again. That they play shorter because they don't have the endurance of men doesn't mean they play easier. They would be still playing at full capacity. Link to post Share on other sites
basil67 Posted August 6, 2020 Share Posted August 6, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Trail Blazer said: I'm not sure what the Aussie girls earn, but I know that at least in the States, the girls earn a comfortable salary to live on and be deemed full-time professional. So they should, given their success. We did it a bit backwards to you. Our girls were given a salary which enabled them to go professional and better facilities and then success followed. Still not equal salary to the guys though. I do hope that we do see change - the A league is getting a bit mucked up with COVID presently. Edited August 6, 2020 by basil67 spello Link to post Share on other sites
thefooloftheyear Posted August 6, 2020 Share Posted August 6, 2020 As an enthusiastic sports fan, I do enjoy some female events...Mostly tennis and MMA.... I thought for sure that women's MMA would be an absolute blockbuster in terms of popularity and earnings...It did for a while there with Ronda R, but it fizzled out...I still enjoy it, the problem is that there aren't enough quality women to make it worth following closely...You got Amanda Nunes, just mopping the floor with these ladies, so its no longer any fun to watch..Many of the other women's classes are just filled with women that frankly just aren't all that skilled or dominant...I always admire the killer instinct and at times poor sportsmanship by the women...It fuels the event...Creates real juice... And the lack of quality competition is what hurts the women's sports in other areas as well..Look how long it took for some of these ladies to finally make a half assed effort against Serena Williams....For a good long while she was so dominant, that it starts to get very boring...She had to basically get old and have a kid to fall back a notch...Even though, she is still superior to just about all the other pro's... Aside from the mere fact that let's face it, as great as some women are, none of them could ride the bench with 3rd string male competitors and people generally want to see "the peak, the best, etc"...But I do think women's sports gets held back from the general lack of quality competitors..If there was more of a competition and less one woman dominating, then for sure it would easily gain in popularity.. TFY 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites
basil67 Posted August 6, 2020 Share Posted August 6, 2020 (edited) 13 minutes ago, thefooloftheyear said: .But I do think women's sports gets held back from the general lack of quality competitors..If there was more of a competition and less one woman dominating, then for sure it would easily gain in popularity.. Which goes back to equality of pay. If women are paid at a level where they can become professional (combined with better coaching and facilities and not have to fund raise to attend OS comps) , more good players can quit their day jobs and focus on their sport. Edited August 6, 2020 by basil67 2 Link to post Share on other sites
sothereiwas Posted August 6, 2020 Share Posted August 6, 2020 2 hours ago, basil67 said: They would be still playing at full capacity. They have less capacity to play from, on average. If score was awarded by level of effort the game would be entirely different, and if my aunt would have had balls she would have been my uncle. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Trail Blazer Posted August 6, 2020 Share Posted August 6, 2020 4 hours ago, basil67 said: And yeah, there's that funny thing called testosterone again. That they play shorter because they don't have the endurance of men doesn't mean they play easier. They would be still playing at full capacity. So, to put it rather bluntly; They do less so they get paid less. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites
sothereiwas Posted August 6, 2020 Share Posted August 6, 2020 (edited) It may come as a bit of a shock to people who have internalized the everyone gets a trophy mantra but in real life, not everyone gets a trophy and like most of life, sports are scored on results, not how hard the players are trying. It's perhaps a little harsh, but that's sort of the point, isn't it? Sport seems to me to be a crucible through which people can vicariously enjoy the excellence of others. What this all has to do with anti-white sentiments, I'm uncertain, but it would have made a great thread of its own. I guess it's related in that (for instance, again) some institutions are allowed to factor in the color of a person's skin rather than just non-racial factors like academic or professional performance. That does seem pretty counter to MLK's dream when you get right down to it. Edited August 6, 2020 by sothereiwas 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Timshel Posted August 6, 2020 Share Posted August 6, 2020 1 hour ago, sothereiwas said: What this all has to do with anti-white sentiments, I'm uncertain, but it would have made a great thread of its own. I guess it's related in that (for instance, again) some institutions are allowed to factor in the color of a person's skin rather than just non-racial factors like academic or professional performance. That does seem pretty counter to MLK's dream when you get right down to it. Some institutions meaning professional sport? You are implying that current day athletic teams choose players based on skin color rather than ability? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
sothereiwas Posted August 6, 2020 Share Posted August 6, 2020 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Timshel said: Some institutions meaning professional sport? You are implying that current day athletic teams choose players based on skin color rather than ability? Not that I'm aware of, but some other institutions do. Sports won't stand for it, I guess is how it's related by a thread. No pun. Edited August 6, 2020 by sothereiwas Link to post Share on other sites
basil67 Posted August 6, 2020 Share Posted August 6, 2020 6 hours ago, sothereiwas said: It may come as a bit of a shock to people who have internalized the everyone gets a trophy mantra but in real life, not everyone gets a trophy and like most of life, sports are scored on results, not how hard the players are trying. Who is getting a prize for not winning their comp? Link to post Share on other sites
basil67 Posted August 6, 2020 Share Posted August 6, 2020 (edited) 16 hours ago, Trail Blazer said: So, to put it rather bluntly; They do less so they get paid less. They do less? Let's take gender out of it and say, compare two men who are swimmers. One has been given access to training since he was a little boy - taken to the pool at dawn, given the best coaches, able to go to international meets. Goes to the Olympics and wins gold. The other is a Vet competing at the Invictus games. He's had a regular childhood, went to war and got blown up. He's suffered terrible injuries and has PTSD. He's fought through this and is now competing with the best of his cohort and wins gold. The Vet scores a lower time because he doesn't have all his limbs and hasn't been raised to be a swimmer since he was a child. Does the Vet do less than the guy who's sporting talent was nurtured? The Vet's achievement is less worthy? @sothereiwas is the Vet's achievement an example of 'everyone gets a prize'? Edited August 6, 2020 by basil67 1 Link to post Share on other sites
basil67 Posted August 6, 2020 Share Posted August 6, 2020 (edited) @Trail Blazer or take sport out of it altogether and look at exam results. Person A has highly educated parents and went to a private school where their learning was nurtured. Tutors available if they were falling behind. Person A didn't have to work because mom and dad gave him money so that he could focus on his studies. Gets an end of school result of 97 Person B comes from working class. Latch key kid, nobody to help with homework. Can't afford tutors. Person B went to a public school and largely taught themselves the curriculum. They needed money, so had to work a job while studying at school. Gets an end of school result of 93 Who did more? (for the record, one of my friends works in HR and would hire Person B over Person A) Edited August 6, 2020 by basil67 1 Link to post Share on other sites
sothereiwas Posted August 6, 2020 Share Posted August 6, 2020 26 minutes ago, basil67 said: Who is getting a prize for not winning their comp? Perhaps I was unclear. Players don't get ranked based solely on how hard they tried. That's the point. 20 minutes ago, basil67 said: Does the Vet do less than the guy who's sporting talent was nurtured? The Vet's achievement is less worthy? @sothereiwas is the Vet's achievement an example of 'everyone gets a prize'? If the vet was slower, then yeah, he didn't do as well. That's how sports are supposed to work. 13 minutes ago, basil67 said: Who did more? I don't care. All I want is the person who can do the best at the job, full stop. If having a unique perspective compared to the rest of the team is a plus then factor that in. If the harder climb seems to indicate more drive, then factor that in, but as for the simple question "who worked harder", I don't care. Not germane to the problem to be solved. Also, HR hires who we tell them to hire. They don't get to make that call. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts