Sexism in surfing

Sexism in surfing

Anthropology, Economics, History, Sociology etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Sexism in surfing

#381  Postby Shrunk » May 16, 2016 3:33 pm

OK, TMB,. I did manage to read your last post, and I have to say you seem very confused in your argument. For instance, look at this paragraph:

In fact men and women often compete against each other many sports like tennis, but almost never at a professional or elite level where there are status symbols at stake. The only reason this is done is so that women can be represented at an elite level. The same rules apply to men as womens tennis, sprinting, surfing, pole vault etc etc. If there was a gender blind tennis event, or 100m sprint, or weightlifting, women would disappear from the elite level. There is no single womens record holder that would even qualify for the mens events in the Olympic games. Serena would not qualify for the last 64 at Wimbledon. When men and women do compete in sport and when comparing club, state, national, international men are better than women. Chris Everts brother was a college level player who could beat Chris in her prime.


I can't imagine why you would go to the effort of writing that, unless you were somehow under the impression that I am claiming that the most accomplished female athletes are generally able to compete at the same level as their male counterparts. If so, please allow me to disavow you of that impression. I am not claiming that in any way.

Where we differ is over your claim that financial compensation for male vs. female athletes is based entirely on what you refer to as "merit," which you define as how well those athletes would do in head-to-head competition (if they play the same sport). Well, if that is the case, Chris Evert's brother must have made much more money from this tennis career than did his sister.

Chris Evert's career earnings were $8.9 million, which is a very impressive figure, especially allowing for inflation. But for some reason I cannot seem to find any reference to her brother's earnings from tennis. Now, I guess it is possible that this is such a stupendously huge number that they can't even fit it on the internet. But can you think of another possible explanation?

:ask:
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Sexism in surfing

#382  Postby Fallible » May 16, 2016 3:40 pm

Men are worse off so less attention is paid to them.





:teef:
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Sexism in surfing

#383  Postby OlivierK » May 16, 2016 9:30 pm

It is, indeed, a global conspiracy on a par with the secret reptilian new world order.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 9828
Age: 54
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Sexism in surfing

#384  Postby THWOTH » May 16, 2016 11:50 pm

I think what TMB means by 'merit' is something to do with how interesting a sport is to men like TMB.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37113
Age: 56

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Sexism in surfing

#385  Postby Shrunk » May 17, 2016 12:36 am

THWOTH wrote:I think what TMB means by 'merit' is something to do with how interesting a sport is to men like TMB.


No, his idea of "merit" makes sense on its own terms. He considers it to reflect performance in absolute terms, without any adjustment for age, gender, disability, etc. So a woman who runs 100 m in 10.49 secs has less "merit" than a man who runs 10.39, even though within their gender categories the latter is a rather unexceptional time, while the former is the fastest ever run by a considerable margin.

Where he goes off the rails is in suggesting that financial reward is actually allotted on the basis of this "merit." If that were the case, the man who runs 10.39 would be paid more than the women who runs 10.49. I don't know on which planet that happens, but it's not this one.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Sexism in surfing

#386  Postby THWOTH » May 17, 2016 2:07 am

Of course, and I wasn't being completely serious, but I still think that much of this boils down to men's sport being considered more 'sporty' and men's sporting performance being seen as a reflection of, or representing an aspiration toward, the epitome of physical or athletic perfection - such that men's participation is given more intrinsic value or worth. This can be seen in TMB's contention that performance at a professional or elite level is imbued with a certain status and that a rightfully higher status is accrued by male performances, which in turn should concomittantly accrue some rightful pecuniary privilege.

There aren't many sports where men an women compete on an equal footing, though there could be more than there are. Relatively pedestrian or sedentary sports, where success is predominantly skill-based rather than reliant on overt strength or speed, seem ripe for gender integration: snooker, darts, shooting, archery, bowls, for example. Team sport could be integrated also, either like athletics or gymnastics championships often are, with their mix of individual gender-specific and overall team placings. or like handball, where mixed teams compete directly against each other.

But I have a sneaking suspicion that the reason many of these sports still remain segregated is because of the perceived damage to men's status that a female champion would engender. There used to be colour-segregation in boxing for example, due to the perceived damage to the status of white males that a black challenger could bring.

One intensely competitive, not to mention lucrative, sport where men and women compete on an equal footing is found in a particular interest of mine - the equestrian sports of show jumping, dressage, and eventing. This I think offers a model of how men and women con compete against each other in a sport which is both physically and mentally demanding and requires a supreme levels of skill and application.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37113
Age: 56

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Sexism in surfing

#387  Postby Shrunk » May 17, 2016 10:40 am

THWOTH wrote:Of course, and I wasn't being completely serious, but I still think that much of this boils down to men's sport being considered more 'sporty' and men's sporting performance being seen as a reflection of, or representing an aspiration toward, the epitome of physical or athletic perfection - such that men's participation is given more intrinsic value or worth.


Except, as TMB himself has repeatedly pointed out (despite the fact that this runs entirely contrary to his line of argument :crazy: ), in most cases women are rewarded at a higher proportionate rate, compared to their absolute level of performance, than are men. That is to say, a woman who performs at the level expected of a mid-level male athlete is rewarded much more lavishly than an actual mid-level male athlete.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Sexism in surfing

#388  Postby Shrunk » May 17, 2016 10:47 am

THWOTH wrote:One intensely competitive, not to mention lucrative, sport where men and women compete on an equal footing is found in a particular interest of mine - the equestrian sports of show jumping, dressage, and eventing. This I think offers a model of how men and women con compete against each other in a sport which is both physically and mentally demanding and requires a supreme levels of skill and application.


And that applies to the horses too, correct?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Sexism in surfing

#389  Postby Sendraks » May 17, 2016 10:48 am

And waaaaay back on page 9 I wrote.

Ultimately the "merit" of the competitors is whatever the prize money says their merit is, which is tied to whatever the punters will pay to see that "merit" and the sponsors will stump up for that "merit."

Don't like that? Don't be part of that system. Which is basically just capitalist principle of people paying whatever they think something is worth.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Sexism in surfing

#390  Postby THWOTH » May 17, 2016 5:59 pm

Shrunk wrote:
THWOTH wrote:One intensely competitive, not to mention lucrative, sport where men and women compete on an equal footing is found in a particular interest of mine - the equestrian sports of show jumping, dressage, and eventing. This I think offers a model of how men and women con compete against each other in a sport which is both physically and mentally demanding and requires a supreme levels of skill and application.


And that applies to the horses too, correct?

Nay. :)
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37113
Age: 56

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Sexism in surfing

#391  Postby TMB » May 18, 2016 2:28 pm

Shrunk you consistently avoid giving direct answers to the following

Your comment that as mens and womens events within the same sport have been separated, this is somehow comparable to different sports, and therefore as there is no valid basis to compare merit between hockey and baseball, there is also no basis to compare merit between men and women events in the same sport.

You have also noted that people pay because of economics and not merit, as if the two are somehow mutually exclusive. On top of this you do not take a position to say why it is people are prepared to pay anything to watch sport. You don’t appear to see that this is a relevant part of the economics equation.

Now that you have been unable to answer these you are off on yet another sidestep with this
Shrunk wrote:
That is what I am saying. Now, I'm still waiting to for you to substantiate the "this is not the case" part. I would suggest you look at how the prize money is allotted in the major Grand Slam tennis tournaments and demonstrate how this is explained by your thesis:

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/about/histo ... money.html

http://www.totalsportek.com/tennis/aust ... ize-money/

http://www.totalsportek.com/tennis/fren ... ize-money/

http://www.totalsportek.com/tennis/wimb ... ize-money/

In particular, pay attention to the difference between men's and women's singles (if there is any), between men's and women's doubles, between both those and mixed doubles, and between singles and doubles overall. Kindly show how this is consistent with your claim that this pay is based on athletic "merit", as you understand it.
Until you clear up your confusion on this issue, I don't think it's going to be worth my mind to wade thru the rest of the verbiage in your post, since it is doubtlessly based on the fundamental conceptual error that, I believe, is illustrated by the above.

It has been noted throughout this discussion that men and womens tennis grand slam tournaments get paid equally, however since the only reason that mens and womens events are split is because of the difference in tennis ability, and also since merit is used to decide how much to reward the players within both the mens and womens event, the reason for equal pay is buckling to political pressure from the womens lobby. This is consistent with my argument as my issue is the demand that women do get paid the same as men in the same sports, but still wantying to get paid on the basis of merit within the womens events. I have an issue with the hypocrisy in this, and since tennis is one of the few that has buckled, will other sports do the same. The rallying cry appears to be the paying women less is treating them like second class citizens, however I would say that paying women the same for a lower performance is a greater insult because it directly supports the idea that women are inferior and so need protection from the harsh, better quality of mens sport.
Shrunk wrote:OK, TMB,. I did manage to read your last post, and I have to say you seem very confused in your argument. For instance, look at this paragraph:
In fact men and women often compete against each other many sports like tennis, but almost never at a professional or elite level where there are status symbols at stake. The only reason this is done is so that women can be represented at an elite level. The same rules apply to men as womens tennis, sprinting, surfing, pole vault etc etc. If there was a gender blind tennis event, or 100m sprint, or weightlifting, women would disappear from the elite level. There is no single womens record holder that would even qualify for the mens events in the Olympic games. Serena would not qualify for the last 64 at Wimbledon. When men and women do compete in sport and when comparing club, state, national, international men are better than women. Chris Everts brother was a college level player who could beat Chris in her prime.

I can't imagine why you would go to the effort of writing that, unless you were somehow under the impression that I am claiming that the most accomplished female athletes are generally able to compete at the same level as their male counterparts. If so, please allow me to disavow you of that impression. I am not claiming that in any way.


This comment is a big win for you? Why don’t you focus your attention to the relevant points in the argument instead of irrelevant trivia like the above?
Shrunk wrote:
Where we differ is over your claim that financial compensation for male vs. female athletes is based entirely on what you refer to as "merit," which you define as how well those athletes would do in head-to-head competition (if they play the same sport). Well, if that is the case, Chris Evert's brother must have made much more money from this tennis career than did his sister.

You are missing the point. My issue is that women feel they are deserving of being paid the same as men if they win a gender segregated tennis singles event. The entire basis of each event is merit, the best player on the day wins the tournament and gets greatest prize money – however by offering women a protected event (on the basis of merit) they are already getting preferential treatment, because if the principle of merit were applied to women as it is to men, women would be eliminated totally.

You appear to think that because women are protected from direct comparison to the better capability in sport that men have, now provides a basis and support for you non argument that reward money is not paid on the basis of merit. The delusion is also played out by someone like Serena Williams when she argues that the women work just as hard as the men. However let us apply this argument when Serena is playing another woman. If Serena beats her (yes its merit again) but her female opponent works just as hard as Serena do you imagine Serena would be OK if they paid all these hardworking women the same as Serena who is a better tennis player? Even paying women less money than the men for the singles still means women get a significant advantage by having their own event. You are still ducking the basic principle that merit is the underlying means to pay people. Answer this question – is there a link between Serenas tennis ability/merit et al and the fact that she gets winners purse? Also note is there another form of value we apply to women when it comes to paying endorsement money. Is there a link between the way Sharapova looks and the amount of money she earns in endorsements (at least before her drug wipe-out) If you are so sure that merit is not the basis we use to judge best, better and worse players and play accordingly, then tell me just what it is in your fantasy world of economics it is the audiences pay money to watch.
Shrunk wrote:
Chris Evert's career earnings were $8.9 million, which is a very impressive figure, especially allowing for inflation. But for some reason I cannot seem to find any reference to her brother's earnings from tennis. Now, I guess it is possible that this is such a stupendously huge number that they can't even fit it on the internet. But can you think of another possible explanation?

You are undermining your own confused argument. Until to face up to the fact that merit is the mechanism that pays more money to better players and we split the mens event from the womens event in order to shield women from the higher merit of men, and allow them a false sense of elite sports ability. And we have done this so successfully that people suspend their critical faculties in order to believe this.

Shrunk wrote: No, his idea of "merit" makes sense on its own terms. He considers it to reflect performance in absolute terms, without any adjustment for age, gender, disability, etc. So a woman who runs 100 m in 10.49 secs has less "merit" than a man who runs 10.39, even though within their gender categories the latter is a rather unexceptional time, while the former is the fastest ever run by a considerable margin.

So because we place a women in a protected category, just as we do with younger, older and disabled athletes and pretend that by doing this, a 10.49 is a better time than a 10.39 just because a women does it. This illustrates that the expectation of performance set for women is lower, so in fact we do say that Serena is great tennis player – for a woman, when we would say that Usain Bolt is a great sprinter for a human being.

You are calling attention to womens inferior sprinting ability here. Florence Joyner who ran the 10.49 time and as you say it’s the fastest ever run BY A WOMAN by a considerable margin. The difference is that the competition for Joyner is other women, sprinters who are on average 10% slower than males at the same level. You seem to think that the fact she is faster than other women makes it a big deal, when all it shows is that all women at this level, and every other level, are 10% slower than the men. Once again concessions are made because women are slower. Since you noted in a earlier post this
Shrunk wrote:
I can't imagine why you would go to the effort of writing that, unless you were somehow under the impression that I am claiming that the most accomplished female athletes are generally able to compete at the same level as their male counterparts. If so, please allow me to disavow you of that impression. I am not claiming that in any way.

While you don’t claim this directly your implication above is that being the best woman is somehow relevant when comparing it to male performance, when it is just a reflection on the lower performance capability of women.
Shrunk wrote:
Where he goes off the rails is in suggesting that financial reward is actually allotted on the basis of this "merit." If that were the case, the man who runs 10.39 would be paid more than the women who runs 10.49. I don't know on which planet that happens, but it's not this one.

Once again you undermine your own position (as confused and convoluted as it is) by pointing out that when we compare men with women we bend the rule of merit in sport to protect women. If we also bent this within an event – ie. If the woman who ran the slowest 100m time was given the gold medal ‘because they tried really hard’, or we ‘felt sorry for them’, the first people to complain would be the woman who ran the fastest time and would demand two things - to be assessed on their merit when compared with other women, and secondly, protected from competing against the superior performance of male athletes.
TMB
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: Sexism in surfing

#392  Postby Sendraks » May 18, 2016 2:34 pm

TMB wrote: You seem to think that the fact he is faster than other men makes it a big deal, when all it shows is that all men at this level, and every other level, are 10% faster than the women. Once again concessions are made because men are faster.


It is so easy to switch the obvious bias around in these confused ramblings.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Sexism in surfing

#393  Postby Thomas Eshuis » May 18, 2016 2:35 pm

:picard:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Sexism in surfing

#394  Postby Shrunk » May 18, 2016 4:57 pm

TMB wrote:It has been noted throughout this discussion that men and womens tennis grand slam tournaments get paid equally, however since the only reason that mens and womens events are split is because of the difference in tennis ability, and also since merit is used to decide how much to reward the players within both the mens and womens event, the reason for equal pay is buckling to political pressure from the womens lobby.


Ah. So, not merit then? :rofl:
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Sexism in surfing

#395  Postby Shrunk » May 18, 2016 4:58 pm

TMB wrote:You have also noted that people pay because of economics and not merit, as if the two are somehow mutually exclusive.


No, I have not. I neither say, nor imply, that they are "mutually exclusive." That's just your comprehension difficulties showing themselves again.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Sexism in surfing

#396  Postby Shrunk » May 18, 2016 5:04 pm

Let me try make this simpler, TMB, though I doubt anything could be made simple enough for you.

Give us one, single, solitary example where professional female athletes are paid in accordance to your definition of "merit". For instance, where a female sprinter who can run the 100 m in 10.7 seconds is paid the same as a man for whom that is his best time. Something like that.

As it is, all you're doing to support your contention that such pay is based on merit is providing example after example where it is not based on merit. Which, I have to say, is a very special way of thinking.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Sexism in surfing

#397  Postby Shrunk » May 18, 2016 5:17 pm

I'm starting to think we should consider dividing members of RationalSkepticism into different categories based on the "merit" of their thinking abilities. It's kind of unfair to have some of them floundering about with the rest of us.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Sexism in surfing

#398  Postby Fallible » May 19, 2016 7:37 am

:tehe:
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Social Sciences & Humanities

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest