Women's World Cup

[Forty Two]

They provide an inferior product.

So it's o.k. to pay women less then, if women provide inferior products.

Sure, why not?

Because the reason women's soccer is considered inferior is a social construct, and the patriarchal male-privilege culture in which our sports leagues are steeped creates the false narrative that women's sports are "inferior" to men's sports. It's the patriarchy that causes people to prefer to watch men's sports and it is the inherent, systemic disparities that cause women's sports to be perceived as inferior. Sports grew out of our overtly masculine culture, and as such systemically excludes and oppresses women.

trolololol. Ok.

We live in a patriarchy.

[Forty Two]

Everyone deserves equal pay for equal work, so all soccer players should get what Lionel Messi makes.

Messi is a brilliant footballer, but he gets paid for the advertising revenue and ticket sales he creates. If the women's world cup generated the same income as the men's, but women were not paid commensurately, then its time to complain.

Except that the reason why women's sports don't generate the same revenue is because of the fact that there are built-in systemic hindrances and obstacles, and built in male privilege. It's systemic oppression of women. You've got the cart before the horse. Our patriarchal system, and a system of media and soccer merchandising dominated by men, makes it impossible for women's sports to generate the same income.

[Forty Two]

So, it's o.k. to pay women less for equal work, where market forces control such pay disparity?

No. It is never OK to pay anybody less for equal work. But footballers are not equal. No woman could do what Messi does and very few men. An unpaid-invoice-manager, though, or a widget-polisher...

So, if men overall worked more hours than women in general, and if men went into fields which tend to pay more (because they are either more technical, more dangerous, etc.) while women tended in greater numbers toward more administrative and support fields, then it would stand to reason that men in general would earn more money than women in general, and that would not be a problem in need of a remedy?

If such a lop-sided study were to be made, of course you would expect to see skewed figures. However, studies comparing like-for-like workers - same job, same hours, same levels of expertise and experience, same productivity, etc. STILL show that women are, in general, paid less than men. Now, would you consider that fair?

No, I would not consider that fair, and I'd love to see those studies. Because the studies I've seen have shown unequivocally that in like for like jobs (comparing men and women in the same job with same experience and qualifications) they are paid the same. In fact, nowadays, women in their 20s outearn men.

[pErvinalia]

So it's o.k. to pay women less then, if women provide inferior products.

Sure, why not?

Because the reason women's soccer is considered inferior is a social construct, and the patriarchal male-privilege culture in which our sports leagues are steeped creates the false narrative that women's sports are "inferior" to men's sports. It's the patriarchy that causes people to prefer to watch men's sports and it is the inherent, systemic disparities that cause women's sports to be perceived as inferior. Sports grew out of our overtly masculine culture, and as such systemically excludes and oppresses women.

trolololol. Ok.

We live in a patriarchy.

Yeah, but that's got nothing to do with women on average being less strong and less fast than men.

[pErvinalia]

So, it's o.k. to pay women less for equal work, where market forces control such pay disparity?

No. It is never OK to pay anybody less for equal work. But footballers are not equal. No woman could do what Messi does and very few men. An unpaid-invoice-manager, though, or a widget-polisher...

So, if men overall worked more hours than women in general, and if men went into fields which tend to pay more (because they are either more technical, more dangerous, etc.) while women tended in greater numbers toward more administrative and support fields, then it would stand to reason that men in general would earn more money than women in general, and that would not be a problem in need of a remedy?

If such a lop-sided study were to be made, of course you would expect to see skewed figures. However, studies comparing like-for-like workers - same job, same hours, same levels of expertise and experience, same productivity, etc. STILL show that women are, in general, paid less than men. Now, would you consider that fair?

No, I would not consider that fair, and I'd love to see those studies. Because the studies I've seen have shown unequivocally that in like for like jobs (comparing men and women in the same job with same experience and qualifications) they are paid the same. In fact, nowadays, women in their 20s outearn men.

I gave you a list of studies in the other thread.

[Hermit]

Everyone deserves equal pay for equal work, so all soccer players should get what Lionel Messi makes.

Messi is a brilliant footballer, but he gets paid for the advertising revenue and ticket sales he creates. If the women's world cup generated the same income as the men's, but women were not paid commensurately, then its time to complain.

Except that the reason why women's sports don't generate the same revenue is because of the fact that there are built-in systemic hindrances and obstacles, and built in male privilege. It's systemic oppression of women. You've got the cart before the horse. Our patriarchal system, and a system of media and soccer merchandising dominated by men, makes it impossible for women's sports to generate the same income.

Did I say the setup is fair and on a level playing field?

[Forty Two]

Yeah, but that's got nothing to do with women on average being less strong and less fast than men.

It has everything to do with it. Patriarchy is not your fault, but it is your responsibility.

the stronger and faster argument is interesting, but ultimately cannot be determinative. After all, why are men better at darts and chess, and poker, and golf and race car driving, badminton.... heck, even curling. there are women's and men's curling teams in the Olympics, because men would dominate curling....

If that's not patriarchy in action.....what is?

[pErvinalia]

I don't know what you are babbling on about. Most women's sport isn't at the same level of men's, simply because of biological limitations. Biology isn't patriarchy.

[Forty Two]

Everyone deserves equal pay for equal work, so all soccer players should get what Lionel Messi makes.

Messi is a brilliant footballer, but he gets paid for the advertising revenue and ticket sales he creates. If the women's world cup generated the same income as the men's, but women were not paid commensurately, then its time to complain.

Except that the reason why women's sports don't generate the same revenue is because of the fact that there are built-in systemic hindrances and obstacles, and built in male privilege. It's systemic oppression of women. You've got the cart before the horse. Our patriarchal system, and a system of media and soccer merchandising dominated by men, makes it impossible for women's sports to generate the same income.

Did I say the setup is fair and on a level playing field?

Nope, but that's why we have change the set up, and run a steam roller over the playing field.

I think we need whole new sports that are created not just with men in mind, but with women too. New, feminist sports that test the strengths and weaknesses of both sexes equally....

I don't know if this is true or not, but I heard women were better than men at target shooting. Is that correct?

[pErvinalia]

they're better at presenting the weather on TV.

[Forty Two]

I don't know what you are babbling on about. Most women's sport isn't at the same level of men's, simply because of biological limitations. Biology isn't patriarchy.

You're missing it -- the reason the women's version of a sport like soccer or baseball or Canadian/American/Ozzie Football are worse is because they came out of the patriarchy. A truly feminist society would have sports that were built for all genders and sexes equally. Soccer is inherently sexist, because it favors male and masculine attributes. It's systemic.

yes, of course women are hamstrung when it comes to playing soccer - the rules and play were built for men.

[Forty Two]

they're better at presenting the weather on TV.

There's your male privilege again.

You're "jokes" are helping to keep women down, and you've helped propagate the trope that Anita Sarkeesian calls "women as background decoration."

Shame on you and your male gaze.

[pErvinalia]

I don't know what you are babbling on about. Most women's sport isn't at the same level of men's, simply because of biological limitations. Biology isn't patriarchy.

You're missing it -- the reason the women's version of a sport like soccer or baseball or Canadian/American/Ozzie Football are worse is because they came out of the patriarchy. A truly feminist society would have sports that were built for all genders and sexes equally. Soccer is inherently sexist, because it favors male and masculine attributes. It's systemic.

yes, of course women are hamstrung when it comes to playing soccer - the rules and play were built for men.

Yeah, great. But that doesn't change the fact that it's perfectly reasonable for female soccer players to get paid less than male soccer players.

[Forty Two]

Of course it does. If the system is built to favor one gender, it doesn't make it reasonable to base compensation on the inherent unfairness and call it fair.

You know, like how women earn about 77 cents on the dollar as men, because the tend to work fewer hours, tend to take more time off, and tend to work in lower paying fields . That's not fair, and somthing needs to be done about it.

[pErvinalia]

[fry]Can't tell if trolling... or just stoopid...[/fry]