1. Hey Guest, welcome back to DLP

    As you can see, we've changed our look. We've migrated from vBulletin to the Xenforo forum system. There may be issues or missing functionality, if you find anything or have feedback, please check out the new Xenforo Migration Feedback forum.

    Our dark ("Dark Lord Potter") theme is under heavy development. We also have a light ("Light Lord Potter") theme for those happier with a light background and darker text.

    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Hey Guest! Are you any good at cooking? Got a favourite recipe that you love to cook or bring out to impress that special someone? Why not share it! A new forum called The Burrow has opened and it's all about homemaking!

Gender Wage Gap

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Agayek, Jan 24, 2017.

  1. Agayek

    Agayek Dark Lord

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,952
    Speaking as someone who grew up around horses and with a veterinarian mother who specialized in horses, I can say that it depends on the particular sport, but for dressage, which is what roughly 98% of people immediately think of when you say "equestrian event", being a woman is a substantial advantage. Mostly just because the smaller and lighter the rider, the easier a time the horse has pulling off their maneuvers, and the easier it is on the rider to move and balance appropriately.

    It's by no means an insurmountable advantage, and a small man is more advantaged than a big woman, but generally speaking, women hold the advantage there.

    Edit:
    And on the other hand, men tend to have a rather massive advantage for nearly any equestrian sport that takes place in a rodeo, so it's not really something you can make a blanket claim on.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2017
  2. Nemrut

    Nemrut The Black Mage Prestige

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    942
    Location:
    Department of Post-Mortem Communications
    High Score:
    2,101
    As a very irregular sports watcher:

    Regarding sports like American football, soccer, basketball, volleyball and all, do people really watch those in order to see the physically best competing? Because it always seemed more about the teams themselves, identifying with them and the skills and tactics used to win. That's why even shit teams who never win have rabid, dedicated fans.

    The difference here for me would be that while men might admittedly run faster and shoot/throw harder/stronger on average, the skills themselves don't really differ from a gender perspective. The skill difference in large is because men's sports have decades of time and effort and untold amounts of money poured into them that women's sports generally haven't and with time and effort, that can be remedied.

    And once that is fixed (long shot, I know), don't think it would matter that women in soccer run slower. If the skills themselves were raised due to better training and developing the athletes, so would the viewership increase, because that would be still fun to watch. The appeal in such a sport is seeing two teams with good skill have an exciting match. That the women's team might run (I'm just throwing a random number out there) 5kmh slower than the men's team on average shouldn't really matter all that much to a fan.

    Guess the bigger question in that would be marketing and the culture of the sports fans themselves. There is a ridiculously large fan culture around the men's sports that just didn't happen for women's sports, really. Like when big teams clash that have decades of rivalry, that's unparalleled. Hamburg vs Bremen, Manchester United vs Arsenal, Real Madrid vs Barca, two American teams that I can't name. Those get people to come, to get invested, one way or another. Really think that part of sports, that fan investment and whatever is more important than any athletic ability and to be honest, I think that's impossible to recreate because, well, it already exists.

    Kinda the way that games or movies try to cash in on previously successful titles by copying it, well, the people already have the original they are super invested in, why would they seek out something new that is virtually the same? Why and how would you get people to be as psyched about a Juventus vs Inter Mailand match for the women's team when that rivalry already exists and people are way too invested in what they have to get into a new thing. Seems really hard to ignite that passion and mania. Those kind of sports do as well as they do because they have built themselves for decades, if not a century for some.

    One way out could be cultivating team rivalries and stories between teams from cities that are lull in the men's sports. Or a new sport is invented and in that the women get equal funding from the beginning and this gives the opportunity to connect to a sport and team right from the start.

    That's really the thing. You want more people watching the sport, but those viewers and fans you want, already have the very product you're trying to sell. Some have almost zealous loyalty to it. At times a generational loyalty, where a family has been fans of a specific team. Why would they switch or rather, also extend that passion to something that's so similar when the itch has already been scratched?

    You kinda get, I don't want to say conditioned but definitely pushed to support the team of the city you were born in/living in, right? That's something really only happening to the men's teams, and guess it would take a while for that to apply to women's teams. Unless that is already happening, but if so, wasn't really exposed to it.

    That's the kinda thing, this kinda fanbase and culture, that women's sports needs, I think.

    Could be wrong though, just my unprofessional thoughts, haven't anything backing this up or done any extensive research on it.
     
  3. Relic

    Relic High Inquisitor

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    502
    The sets argument for women "deserving" is complete nonsense, tbh. The only thing that should influence so called equal pay in tennis (which doesn't really exist) is how much each tour brings in. If the men's tour brings in more then sure I can see the argument but the fact of the matter is that the tours are so intertwined in the events where equal pay exists that it's hard to actually analyze what people 'deserve'.

    Let's take the biggest events, the slams, for example. Both genders play all day in alternating time slots on the same courts. A fan of Serena, who only came to watch her, probably will watch other people (man and woman) as well. Same with Roger. This may seem obvious but this is actually a huge boon to the sport overall that is really hard to measure! Both tours benefit from the strength of the other. Without 'equal pay' this strength doesn't exist and if you get rid of it you are not just hurting women's tennis, you are hurting tennis overall.

    Also, if you propose the argument that women should get paid less because they bring in lesser ratings, which is less money - how far do you go? Serena Williams is bringing in way more viewership than Milos Raonic and is way more marketable. Do you punish the individuals who are less marketable? Does Li Na deserve more money than Azarenka because she brings in a shit ton of ratings compared to Vika? The question essentially is do you punish those that bring in less money? I think most people would say no.

    Now for the sets argument. Aside that it's a completely asinine way to measure "work", the idea that women deserve 60% less is based on the idea that they cannot/do not want to play a best of 5 match. The fact of the matter is that a lot of stars have said that they wouldn't mind at all (why shouldn't they, a longer match generally favors the higher ranked player) but the major hurdle is scheduling at these events. It's a lame problem but it makes a lot of sense. A major has to be completed in 2 weeks and we are just barely doing that. Make women play best of 5s and you are compounding that problem even more.

    It would take a huge change in the structure of tournaments for that thought to be considered, with a nonzero amount of risk. Until the ITF (people who run the slams) say to the WTA/players that they want them to play best of 5s in majors and the WTA/players refuse it is entirely unfair to give them less money on something as arbitrary as match length.

    And finally, if you still have issues with 'equal pay' in tennis, you can rest assured that women make on average 80% of what the guys do. There are more to the tennis year than slams, including a lot of tour specific events which can pay out whatever they want.
     
  4. kinetique

    kinetique Groundskeeper

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    Messages:
    344
    I think comparing Serena Williams to Nadal or Federa would be a much more honest comparison then comparing her to Milos Raonic.

    Actually thinking about it, equal pay starts looking ridiculous when the job at hand has any variability at all. I'm quite sure that were I to walk to the neareast factory, the forklift drivers would have differences in how much value they bring to the company, and something like that is significantly further down the totem pole then people competing to be the absolute best in the world at some event.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2017
  5. Wildfeather

    Wildfeather Seventh Year Prestige

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    239
    Location:
    Florida
    High Score:
    2,011
    What? Are you kidding me? The athletic abilities of individual football players are quantified to the highest level of any sport I know, and the individual talents and abilities of those players are a major source of hype/entertainment/interest of the audience. If the athleticism of the individuals in the event was of no interest to the audience, then fantasy football wouldn't exist, and statistical analysis of individual players would not be a major segment of the football networks.

    If you think that "skill, expertise, and ability" have no relation to the gender of the person who possesses them, you have completely disconnected from reality. At the highest levels of professional sports, I would bet that gender would be a strong indicator (in favor of men) of success in any sport that used objectively measurable success. Even in sports where there are not objective measurements for success (lifting the highest weight, running the fastest/farthest, etc.) I'm almost entirely sure that there are gender separated leagues because most male competitors would defeat most female competitors.

    There's no amount of money you could pour into coaching to make the genders equal. Professional athletes possess the top 1% of athletic capacity in the world, and at that level the biological differences between men and women matter, significantly. Do I understand it correctly when you say that if (somehow) all sports funding for men's leagues was instead diverted to women's leagues, that in some span of time women would be able to out-compete men in those sports where men are objectively better (e.g. weight lifting, sprinting)?

    If such data existed, it would be interesting to see the biological differences between men and women who play the same sport professionally. Would they have different reaction gaps? What about the number of rods/cones in their eyes? And the how about the differentiation of muscle tissue (what's the ratio to fast/slow twitch?)? Empirically, i'm not sure the data exists, but anecdotally, it seems that men have strong advantages in those areas.

    If your point is that "if women had more money they could get more out of their training regiments" then I can understand and agree with that point. There's no amount of money though that will compensate for the competitive advantage of being born a male. There are already athletes who spend immense amounts of money maximizing their (individual) routines (both male and female). They are still not competing on an even level, which means that men's events will be more popular because the displays of athleticism will be greater in men's sports.

    I highlighted this passage in my original response "Given time, I can't see how women's sports wouldn't be just as popular, thereby earning equality in pay with their male counterparts" and then went on to say: even if the spending was equal, men's sports would draw more viewership (and thus women's sports would never equal it in revenue generating) because men's sports have an innate advantage over women's sports because of the biological advantage men have over women (and possibly other reasons, such as tribalism, and the psychology of the male mind as it relates to empathy) . As other people have explained, the person viewing may not be doing so because of their interest in the gender of the competitors, but because of their ability to do something at a level that exceeds that of any other (i.e. strongman lifts the biggest weight). Using that as the basis for an argument, you cannot argue that women's sports given equal money would eventually be equivalent a men's sports because any physical achievement in a women's sport (based on objective measurements) is almost always immediately overshadowed by a great achievement in the same sport by men.

    As I argued above people are not watching a sport for the sole purpose of gaining entertainment through the athletic abilities of individual athletes, but it definitely plays a strong role in the interest. Tribalistic association with a sports team is almost always stronger when a team is winning (fair weather fans). The fact that there are outliers (Rabid fans of teams that mostly or always lose) doesn't mean that the vast majority of fans associate more strongly with a team when it's winning.

    I think part of the tribalism of being a sports fan requires you to think your team can succeed, even if it not currently succeeding. I won't argue too much about the tribalism stuff, because it's not really something i'm interested in, nor something i've done extensive studies of. As I understand it, tribalism doesn't exactly follow logical patterns. I pulled the below section out, though because I wanted to discuss the point separately.

    I don't think this would matter much in the long term. There are many competitive events that are relatively recent and have made extensive efforts to be completely egalitarian, and they still wind up being male dominated. Basically all e-sports organizations would KILL to be able to roster a female teammate that was as good as a male counterpart, because it would be an amazing marketing angle for their team. There have been some significant attempts to bring some of the more skilled female players to the professional level, but to my understanding none have been successful (I am purposefully not mentioning any organization that rosters a fully female team, since to my knowledge they not have been competitively successful).

    Taken to its logical conclusion, any person who feels like gender equality should exist in sports should be a person who campaigns for the removal of "men" and "women's" leagues and just has competitive leagues of people that are completely gender-blind. Of course, this would result in the complete decimation of almost all female athletes, so it would never happen.
     
  6. Gengar

    Gengar Polymagus Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2009
    Messages:
    59
    High Score:
    6005
    Not all men are equal either. By your logic, only the best team in the world would have fans, which is ludicrous.

    The Premier League is the richest league in the world, and nowhere near the best. The bottom half of La Liga would stomp the bottom half of the Premier League, but the PL teams have way more fans and money.

    Stop bringing up women being as good as men at the sport. It's irrelevant.

    Women can be just as entertaining, however, especially if they go full pro and can dedicate their lives to improving like their male counterparts can.

    Bringing it back to the gender wage gap, the men are obviously paid so ludicrously because the money's there. It wasn't always. Go back to the 70s and they were making regular living wages, you know, before the Premier League was birthed and money was poured into it.
     
  7. Paranoid Android

    Paranoid Android Groundskeeper

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2012
    Messages:
    327
    Location:
    Australia
    Testosterone is a hell of a drug. It's an anabolic steroid. After puberty men are going to be taller and have greater muscle mass then woman on average. Because of it'a effects the top 1% of men are going to be better then the top 1% of woman at the sports in which these attributes are important , which happen to be the higher paid sports.

    To get an idea of just how big the effect, of testosterone, is isolated from any social effects of sexism look at the over representation of intersex individuals, compared to their population size, in the upper reaches of woman's sports. A lot of the time these people only find out after dominating a sport and being tested for anabolic steroids.
     
  8. kinetique

    kinetique Groundskeeper

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    Messages:
    344
    The money is in mens sports because of an interest in it. There is overwhelmingly less interest in womens sports in comparison. Throwing money at advertising doesn't make something more popular, else the rapidly growing dirge of modern video games would not be occurring, as people floc to the prequels (starcraft two in particular comes to mind).

    I can see the argument that womens tennis is more entertaining, I can't see the argument that womens mma is on the other hand, or womens soccer, or womens basketball. A lot of sports entertainment comes from watching people perform feats at the limit of what a human can do. Watching Lebron James slap a basketball out of someones hand as they go for a dunk is incredible, watching the womens equivalent simply isn't.

    Honestly, I don't understand why an equal 50/50 divide has to be achieved across so many different things, I don't understand why equal work for equal pay is a thing in entertainment over equal satisfaction for equal pay. If Serena pulls in more people then Nadal, then her playing a best of 3 instead of a best of 5 is irrelevant.

    What's next, male rockstars get paid more then female rockstars? How come Taylor Swift isn't paid as much as Eminem (or vice versa)? Probably the same reason there's a divide in most pay gaps.
     
  9. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    74
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    There's a difference in being paid differently based on how much revenue you as a person can draw to your sport/concert/film/book/etc., and being paid equally for equal work.

    To stay with athletes, that's the difference between players on team sports, who are paid what they're worth on the market based on their skill and what money (advertising, fans, viewers) they can bring with them, and tournament winnings. Serena might be more popular than many of her male counterparts, but she doesn't put in the same work, so it makes sense that she has more sponsorships and endorsements, but it doesn't make sense that she wins the same prize money. Paying her equally (or more) would only make sense if every tourney prize was recalculated based on popularity and market value of the player who won, which would be absurd.
     
  10. awinarock

    awinarock Alchemist

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,250
    Location:
    Texas
    You could argue that the two go hand in hand. More money doesn't just mean access to better coaching, nutrition, and training, but better marketing, event planning, etc. as well.
     
  11. kinetique

    kinetique Groundskeeper

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    Messages:
    344
    Serena's work as far as a tennis tournament is concerned is down to how many people she can draw to the event. If two complete no names win and knock the Williams sisters out the event isn't going to suffer for it, quite the opposite.

    Equal pay for equal work is a nice sounding phrase but the work doesn't end for Serena after she wins, or even after she finishes training for the day. Promotional tours etc.
     
  12. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    74
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    Not the point if it's nice sounding or not. That's the argument female tennis players used to push the equal prize distribution. So they should live up to their own arguments, or admit that it's BS and they just wanted more money. What she does off the court is her own business, and irrelevant to the question of 'equal pay for equal work.'
     
  13. kinetique

    kinetique Groundskeeper

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    Messages:
    344
    We're going to have to agree to disagree then.
     
  14. Legend3381

    Legend3381 Seventh Year

    Joined:
    May 26, 2016
    Messages:
    218
    Location:
    New Jersey
    High Score:
    0
    I second that notion
     
  15. Quiddity

    Quiddity Auror

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2014
    Messages:
    644
    Location:
    New Zealand
  16. Nazgus

    Nazgus Death Eater

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Messages:
    904
    Location:
    USA
    That's a very interesting piece. The part about how women should just 'be better engineers' hit close to home, since I recently had a conversation with a family member over the lack of women in STEM where she kept saying no one was stopping them and they should just try harder.

    I think that's the biggest problem with this issue, that a lot of it isn't something you can just point to and say "See? They're paying her less!" It tends to be more insidious things like blocked promotions for no explained reason, much higher expectations for equal recognition, and a brush off of sexual harassment.
     
  17. Gengar

    Gengar Polymagus Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2009
    Messages:
    59
    High Score:
    6005
    Ridiculous, probably on the extreme side of things, but utterly believable.

    A huge part of me is annoyed that she didn't leverage her obvious worth and continued to maker her higher-ups look good, but I don't know her situation. Maybe she didn't have the opportunity or the luxury of telling them to fuck off and move on, I don't know her personal situation well enough.

    Maybe it's my stupid male pride talking, but I'd have walked instantly at about 'HR blatantly lying' phase.
     
  18. awinarock

    awinarock Alchemist

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,250
    Location:
    Texas
    The article indicated she had screenshots of the sexual advances so it wouldn't have taken too much work for her to seek help outside of HR. Especially if there were other women who complained about the same thing.
     
  19. Gengar

    Gengar Polymagus Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2009
    Messages:
    59
    High Score:
    6005
    I'm no lawyerman, but that seems pretty actionable. Again, I don't know her situation, I'm guessing money is an issue, especially when going up against uber's legal department.
     
  20. Agayek

    Agayek Dark Lord

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,952
    Speaking as someone who lives and works in the San Francisco tech industry, It's certainly possible, but with her resume, in the SF Bay Area, she should be making bank. As in, easily 6 figures, and more than enough to be comfortably well off, even around here.

    I mean, she may just be really bad with money and have a bunch of debt or can't save or something, but with her skillset and background, you've gotta fuck up pretty hard not to be able to afford a half-decent lawyer, especially for a case that open and shut.