Sexism in surfing

Thomas Eshuis · **#61** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Apr 19, 2016 5:22 am

TMB wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
TMB wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Given that you seem to think appeals to random anecdotes constitutes evidence, you're in no position to judge.

And you are making an assertion, can you support it with some logic and evidence?

Just like 42 and other MRM like members on this site, you have a habit of (cherry) picking extreme anecdotes about feminism in a thinly veiled attempt to discredit it.
I know you'll vehemently deny this and I could not care less.

I don't have to discredit feminism, it does that all by itself by suspending rational debate in favour of political. You should care more about this.

I care about a nuanced reality, rather than hysterical black and white thinking.

Spinozasgalt · **#62** by **Spinozasgalt** » Apr 19, 2016 9:47 am

TMB wrote:So the truth cannot be sexist? If sport is based upon merit only and in doing so womens performance removes them from any contention because they perform to lower standards than men, then it is this lower performance that condemns them and not sexism. In fact it is sexism that prevents them from being judged on their merit. Equla pay for equal merit is the argument used in business between men and women, why is it not the same in sport? Because it would mean women will get less.

Or, as I suggested, it may be that "merit" and/or "merit as judged" are already sexed: that is, they may already emphasize the attributes more common to, or socially nurtured in, men and thus disadvantage women who compete. If so, then removing the division between men and women is not ridding the sport of sexism. It may, instead, be removing one of the protections against that sexism.

Thommo · **#63** by **Thommo** » Apr 19, 2016 10:05 am

TMB wrote:Equla pay for equal merit is the argument used in business between men and women, why is it not the same in sport?

It is the same in sport. In both cases the argument is that having equal work without having equal pay is inherently unfair. This is summed up by the phrase "equal pay for equal work", which is widely used. Entirely unlike the phrase "equal pay for equal merit", which itself does not say anything about what the correct pay for "unequal work" or "unequal merit" should be anyway.

Paramedics and pharmacists do not do the same work. The whole equality argument is silent on who should be paid more, just as it is on comparing actuaries to tennis players.

There is no maxim or argument to support the contention that unequal work merits unequal pay. In some cases it generates unequal pay, in others it does not.

I think this whole problem can be sorted out by one easy policy - those of us who do not give a shit about women's surfing should simply not watch or participate in women's surfing. Of course the same goes for men's surfing.

Fallible · **#64** by **Fallible** » Apr 19, 2016 10:07 am

That has been my policy since birth. It has worked very well for me so far.

Sendraks · **#65** by **Sendraks** » Apr 19, 2016 10:10 am

Fallible wrote:That has been my policy since birth. It has worked very well for me so far.

"Mr & Mrs Fallible's parents, you've given birth to a bouncing baby girl."
"So she's healthy?"
"Yes, she appears to be. Although she appears to have been born clutching a policy document about neither watching nor participating in surfing."

Evolving · **#66** by **Evolving** » Apr 19, 2016 11:01 am

Without women's surfing, neither of these classic films would have been made:

Spinozasgalt · **#67** by **Spinozasgalt** » Apr 19, 2016 11:03 am

Shut it down.

Thommo · **#68** by **Thommo** » Apr 19, 2016 11:11 am

She has a pink dolphin. :shifty:

tuco · **#69** by **tuco** » Apr 19, 2016 11:22 am

Allegedly there are some kids thinking cows are purple.

Hobbes Choice · **#70** by **Hobbes Choice** » Apr 19, 2016 12:02 pm

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:This doesn't even have anything to do with feminism!

Feminism can take issue at any level and any subject. It is not bounded, and modern feminists can speak out on issues of gender regardless of which of the many genders that exist. And can be applied well out of the context of gender to include race and other issues of prejudice.
However, most feminists have not managed to think themselves out of attacking sexism with more sexism as this thread shows.
Old school feminism is nothing better than a female oriented sexism to combat male oriented sexism.

Sendraks · **#71** by **Sendraks** » Apr 19, 2016 12:04 pm

Indeed, you cannot fully appreciate or understand feminism until you have heard the original mansplaining.

:coffee:

Thommo · **#72** by **Thommo** » Apr 19, 2016 12:25 pm

Hobbes Choice wrote:However, most feminists have not managed to think themselves out of attacking sexism with more sexism as this thread shows.

Where does it show that?

Of the people in this thread who identify as feminists, you're suggesting that "most" attack sexism with sexism. Right now, I can't see anyone doing that. At worst I see a single sarcastic use of "male" (non-plural) in #43 and even stretching the point to breaking, that's not sexism.

Rachel Bronwyn · **#73** by **Rachel Bronwyn** » Apr 19, 2016 12:34 pm

a) He has no idea who if anyone here identifies as a feminist and b) no one has "attack[ed] sexism with sexism", much less most feminists, so, yeah, that "contribution" can be summarily dismissed.

I'm super happy to have had my own thoughts and feelings explained to me by a man, though, again!

Evolving · **#74** by **Evolving** » Apr 19, 2016 12:48 pm

To be fair, I've provided a link to some hard-core feminist viewing.

Doubtdispelled · **#75** by **Doubtdispelled** » Apr 19, 2016 12:54 pm

Sendraks wrote:Indeed, you cannot fully appreciate or understand feminism until you have heard the original mansplaining.

My daily snigger, you have provided. I thank you.

TMB · **#76** by **TMB** » Apr 19, 2016 12:56 pm

Doubtdispelled wrote:
TMB wrote:
Rachel Bronwyn wrote:
Doubtdispelled wrote:

I genuinely feel sorry for his daughters. True story, dat.

He has daughters? Fuuuuuuck.

This is ad hominem, and it suits you both.

So report us then, oh mighty rational human male.
TMB wrote:
If your position cannot be defended rationally then attack the person.

Two things.

I don't have an actual position to defend on this particular issue. I can see both sides of the argument, the problem, and I know there is no easy solution. Obviously I can't speak for Rach but I wouldn't be at all surprised if her attitude was the same. Now you can ask me why I'm bothering to post in this thread, as you are bound to do.

Secondly, how is stating that I feel sorry for your daughters an ad hom? Ditto Rachel's response.

TMB wrote:Its easy, requires no thought and no substance. Ironically its also a rational approach for you to take in these debates because its all you have. Comments like yours make me feel sorry for the world of reason.

The whole of your posting history on this forum makes me feel sorry for the world of women. Most especially your women. They are the ones who have to live within your unreasoning and strange world of obsession with sporting females.

Or really, almost any females, I suspect.

More ad hominem. Why do you imagine that because you are making (and can seemingly only make) ad hominem, I must run off any report you. That sounds very much like a victims approach. The only issue I have with your ad hominem comments is the damage they cause to rational debate. And you are doing it on a forum called rational scepticism, what a joke.

Sendraks · **#77** by **Sendraks** » Apr 19, 2016 12:59 pm

TMB wrote:More ad hominem.

Where?

Do you think that repeatedly saying ad hominem makes it so or is this use of latin in your posts merely a misguided attempt at trying to present a façade of intellectualism?

TMB · **#78** by **TMB** » Apr 19, 2016 1:04 pm

Fallible wrote:I'm not sure I believe this claim that (sports)women make more from their appearance and that their appearances are more aesthetically pleasing. Apart from the fact that the way it was presented seems to suggest a complete failure to notice the entire male modelling industry, this is not 1953. The age of the metrosexual is upon us, and much care is taken by men over their looks. (Sports)men are often to be seen with their tops off or in their knickers on the front of magazines. David Beckham and Tom Daley spring immediately to mind, but I've even borne witness to pasty Andy Murray doing his best Blue Steel. Roger Federer has several endorsements from coffee machines to Moet and Chandon (clearly he was given this job because he looks like a sack tied up in the middle) And wait...who's this?

Ah well, I'm sure this Armani setup don't pay much, whoever the hell they are...

Its not a question of there being NO male models, or them not paying anything, its about them getting less and there being less interest than you get in female equivalents. In the same way, its recognised that there are good women surfers, or tennis players, or sprinters, but the best men are better than the best women.

This means that many more women make their living from their looks than men do, and in many cases aside from their looks and ambition, they have no other talent. David Beckham might be considered a desirable and good looking man but he is firstly a great soccer player. Good looking male celebrities usually need a talent to get them to the top. Looks alone can get a woman much further, many of the Miss World/Universe competitions show plenty of examples of this.

Sendraks · **#79** by **Sendraks** » Apr 19, 2016 1:07 pm

TMB wrote: Looks alone can get a woman much further, many of the Miss World/Universe competitions show plenty of examples of this.

Yup. I blame men.

TMB · **#80** by **TMB** » Apr 19, 2016 1:11 pm

Spinozasgalt wrote:
TMB wrote:
Spinozasgalt wrote:
Hobbes Choice wrote:This whole problem is a total nonsense.

Women surfers are benefiting from the policy of sexism, as this gives them a men-free competitive field. There are men's competitions, and women's competitions.
WHAT WOULD A NON SEXIST Surfing competition look like?
That would be men and women competing against each other IN THE SAME competition. If you want sexual equality then compete without reference to sex in the first place!

If an emphasis on typically male athletic attributes, or attributes typically associated with or more common to men, is already built into the sport as it's run, then combining the sexes into one competition is just removing a space for women within the sport. It's not removing the sexism within the sport.

If I understand your base point correctly, this is that sports in general favour male capability more than women, which is evident in the results etc. However I do not see the link in your next comment to sexism. Surely if merit is the only criteria used, participants would not be assessed based upon their gender, just on their merit. A space for women is not being removed, they are just being rewarded in proportion to their merit. If they are good enough to win, they get the winners purse or the gold medal. If men are better then they get the rewards.

If merit or how merit is judged in the sport is already sexed, then it seems the problem is still there.

I do not understand your point. How is the speed that someone runs, or hits a tennis ball, or does anything that is not directly related to the sex specific body parts, being 'already sexed'? Just as one sees in business, a job has to be done and people with the skills execute the job and are paid based upon performance. Playing tennis is not something exclusive to age or gender or race, just to human beings. The merit of this is how well you do it relative to others based upon rules. The fact that elite women tennis players compete against each other, and can beat many lower standard men shows. However at every level of tennis and pretty much other sports, men consistently beat women.

Sexism in surfing

Re: Sexism in surfing

Re: Sexism in surfing

Re: Sexism in surfing

Re: Sexism in surfing

Re: Sexism in surfing

Re: Sexism in surfing

Re: Sexism in surfing

Re: Sexism in surfing

Re: Sexism in surfing

Re: Sexism in surfing

Re: Sexism in surfing

Re: Sexism in surfing

Re: Sexism in surfing

Re: Sexism in surfing

Re: Sexism in surfing

Re: Sexism in surfing

Re: Sexism in surfing

Re: Sexism in surfing

Re: Sexism in surfing

Re: Sexism in surfing

Who is online