Sexism in surfing
Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker
Spinozasgalt wrote:What's a "Gottem!"?
Urban Dictionary wrote:A word describing all things good in the world. The opposite of fiddle. Gottem originated in the Asian portions of New Jersey and had spread to be a world-wide phenomenon. It can be heard in the songs Teach Me How To Gottem, All I Do Is Gottem, and Gottem Good. All math teachers' least favorite word.
Fallible wrote:This is part of the cycle. He appears from nowhere, drops the same recycled turd, defends it rigorously if ineptly for a couple of weeks, gradually starts to drift off with the lengthy replies but pops up occasionally to share a bitchy one-liner or two, then disappears, often when he's painted himself into a corner or someone's posted evidence he can't refute. Rinse, repeat.
Rachel Bronwyn wrote: My ex made more money than me but I worked more than him so he did more domestic stuff than I ever did. He had time for it. I wasn't capable of bringing in the same income as him but of course I expected myself to do the same amount of work as he. I was able to pay my own living expenses and he was able to save or spend however he liked the surplus income he had. If we'd gotten married and had a bunch of kids we would have agreed that he would contribute more money than I because while we'd be contributing the same percentage of our incomes his income is so much greater than mine that it's a much bigger dollar amount. At the end of the day though we put in the same amount of work and the same percentage of our incomes.
TMB wrote:Fallible wrote:This is part of the cycle. He appears from nowhere, drops the same recycled turd, defends it rigorously if ineptly for a couple of weeks, gradually starts to drift off with the lengthy replies but pops up occasionally to share a bitchy one-liner or two, then disappears, often when he's painted himself into a corner or someone's posted evidence he can't refute. Rinse, repeat.
Since you are suggesting that that I have been given evidence I cannot refute, lets look at some of the examples from this thread and others as you refer back to previous discussion I would say that no evidence is offered and the logical proposition that was put up by yourself and others is illogical.
Shrunk is offering that pay can be based on just economics and not linked to anything of value, and does not address merit as one possibility row omens looks that might influence pay rates, all within an economic system.
When I argued that being dead was a worse proposition than being alive you opposed this,
when I noted that men higher suicide and earlier death was no a benefit,
that being alive and having a better quality was in fact a benefit experienced more by women than by men, you disagreed.
[/quote]And finally there was this post, in all its glory, offered by Rachel Bronwyn on her version of where the logic seemd to be not based upon merit but based upon time and percentage of actual contribution and because both time and the percentage of different outcomes and productivity rates was equality.Rachel Bronwyn wrote: My ex made more money than me but I worked more than him so he did more domestic stuff than I ever did. He had time for it. I wasn't capable of bringing in the same income as him but of course I expected myself to do the same amount of work as he. I was able to pay my own living expenses and he was able to save or spend however he liked the surplus income he had. If we'd gotten married and had a bunch of kids we would have agreed that he would contribute more money than I because while we'd be contributing the same percentage of our incomes his income is so much greater than mine that it's a much bigger dollar amount. At the end of the day though we put in the same amount of work and the same percentage of our incomes.
Is the above what you meant by is irrefutable evidence?
TMB wrote:Shrunk is offering that pay can be based on just economics and not linked to anything of value, and does not address merit as one possibility row omens looks that might influence pay rates, all within an economic system.
Fallible wrote:You see, this is the sort of thing women should be doing. Talking about hair. We'll all have an opinion on that. So much more interesting than that ookie stuff about gender bias in sport and sport earnings. What is a gender, anyway? A kind of pony? Oh my goodness, I hope it's a kind of pony! SQUEEEEEE!!!!
Shrunk wrote:Actually, no, you didn't. Read what you wrote above. You asked about the role of "merit" in determining the pay given to models and beauty pageant contestants. Personally, I don't see how "merit" is based on much other than the willingness of people to pay money to those models and beauty pageant contestants.
Shrunk wrote:I have not denied that merit plays a role in how athletes are compensated within the same sport.
Shrunk wrote: However, that does not negate my position that pay is based on economics, rather than merit.
Shrunk wrote: It just happens that, in that particular instance, merit is easily translated into an economic benefit to those who hold the purse strings and decide how much the athletes are paid.
Shrunk wrote: Even within the same sport we see how "merit" is often disconnected from financial compensation. Why are football quarterbacks paid so much more than offensive linemen? Or, in baseball, why is a power hitter typically paid so much more than a light-hitting second baseman who plays strong defense? Is there more "merit" in hitting a home run than turning the double play? Or is it that spectators are more eager to pay money to see home runs than solid defense?
Shrunk wrote:What we are arguing over, since you seem to need reminding, is your claim that relative pay between athletes who do not compete against each other is, or should be, based on "merit." You have yet to offer even the semblance of an argument to support this. In fact, in the post where I outlined my argument against your position, you agreed (often "violently") with pretty well every point I offered in refutation of your position.
Shrunk wrote: So I'm not sure why you feel I need to provide any further argument after you have already capitulated so completely. The one point on which you claimed disagreement was actually one I never made, but was simply the result of your failure to comprehend what I wrote.
Shrunk wrote:I have made no comment whatsoever on why people watch sports.
Shrunk wrote: Again, I remind you, our discussion is over why there are differences, often quite large ones, between the amount paid to athletes who do not complete against each other.
Shrunk wrote: You say this is because of "merit", but when we discuss some examples of these differences (e.g. hockey vs baseball), you say this is not because of merit. OK, then. So what further response is needed from me after you have admitted you are wrong?
THWOTH wrote:Yeah, you do like to comb through the issues, teasing them out to get to the root of the matter.
Return to Social Sciences & Humanities
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest