Author Topic: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?  (Read 18494 times)

use2betrix

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1315
So those of you who only want to watch the top levels in sports - I trust you do not watch junior hockey, high school football, or any other sport where level of play is not world class?

I have heard people go for the opposite viewpoint, that because women do not have the sheer strength to muscle through in a sport, they go for planning, finesse, and strategy, which can make the game (whatever game it is) equally interesting in its own way. 

Women's curling is just as interesting as men's, and so is mixed.  Each requires different technique.  (Curling is much more interesting than baseball, it is just most people have no clue about what is going on in the game).

Anecdote - I forget where I saw this, in show jumping, when there are multiple people in a tie, sometimes they have the riders trade horses.  Riding someone else's horse, it is usually a woman who wins - because she knows it is the team of the horse and her, not just her, that needs to complete the round.

Some sports I believe that you can certainly make that argument.

I like to watch judo, BJJ, boxing, Muay Thai, and the occasional MMA fight.  It's hard to find this stuff televised, and I've watched (and participated in) many local amateur matches.  I'll take what I can get.  :P  The caliber and skill of high level men vs high level women in combat sports that I have seen is not even close though.  It's phenomenally higher for men (maybe because far fewer women take up competitive combat sports?  I don't know.)  Because of this I'd opt for watching men rather than women every time that a pro match is on.

Iím also a big MMA fan. While I typically mostly watch the male athletes, I do greatly enjoy some of the top females, primarily Cris Cyborg. Rhonda Rousey, IMO, is a major black eye to womenís sports. I cannot recall a single athlete in personal memory that was such a sore loser/quitter, as she was. She had every potential to become an icon for women athletes, but instead fell into the negative stereotype that society is pushing to move past.

As an example - Cyborg is one of the strongest, hardest strikers in the sport. I remember a fight where she had knocked her opponent wobbly, and was able to continually land hard, heavy face punches over and over and over. Even then, she didnít have the strength to knock her opponent out. Does it happen? Sure, but itís nowhere near the same. For a strength comparison, I believe itís just been in the last few decades that the first woman was able to bench 300lbs. Anymore, for a man, a 300lb bench press isnít even anything that impressive.


big_owl

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 555
Huh. It doesn't occur to me to compare the female to the male athletes. (I mean, I can do it now, as a thought exercise, but it's not something that springs naturally to my mind.) Any more than I'd see a greyhound race and think, "well, a cheetah could outrun any of them, so no point in watching this."

Which is maybe the crudest gender essentialism, on my part...? I dunno.

I'm not aware of anything creepy about my engagement with it. (For that matter, it's not clear to me why watching 20-something young men run about is automatically non-creepy. I think we're just used to it.)

Not sure how much the fact that we have a bunch of world-cup-contending women playing here in Portland has to do with my being a fan. In the universe of women's soccer Portland is an important place, and there aren't all that many universes in which it even appears on the map. (Brewing? Zines? Tiny houses?)

The difference is that there is no such thing as professional cheetah racing.  But if there was...I bet all of a sudden dog racing would seem slow and it would be much less popular.  There was once a show that compared a greyhound vs a cheetah racing and the cheetah made the dog look like a bumbling idiot.  In slow motion the dog looks pathetic compared to the cat.  But if I had never seen that show then I'd probably still think greyhounds were graceful. 

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9803
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Huh. It doesn't occur to me to compare the female to the male athletes. (I mean, I can do it now, as a thought exercise, but it's not something that springs naturally to my mind.) Any more than I'd see a greyhound race and think, "well, a cheetah could outrun any of them, so no point in watching this."

Which is maybe the crudest gender essentialism, on my part...? I dunno.

I'm not aware of anything creepy about my engagement with it. (For that matter, it's not clear to me why watching 20-something young men run about is automatically non-creepy. I think we're just used to it.)

Not sure how much the fact that we have a bunch of world-cup-contending women playing here in Portland has to do with my being a fan. In the universe of women's soccer Portland is an important place, and there aren't all that many universes in which it even appears on the map. (Brewing? Zines? Tiny houses?)

The difference is that there is no such thing as professional cheetah racing.  But if there was...I bet all of a sudden dog racing would seem slow and it would be much less popular.  There was once a show that compared a greyhound vs a cheetah racing and the cheetah made the dog look like a bumbling idiot.  In slow motion the dog looks pathetic compared to the cat.  But if I had never seen that show then I'd probably still think greyhounds were graceful.

Do the comparison you have in real life - dogs versus horses.  People watch horse racing, people watch greyhound racing, they are both valid sports.  Can the be competitive on the same track?  NO.  So instead of looking at women's sports and seeing them as less interesting than the same men's sports (because of the physical presence professional male athletes bring to the game) why not see watching women's sports as a different sport and appreciate what they bring to the game?  Sort of like softball versus baseball, or giant slalom versus slalom.  Otherwise it is the same mind set mentioned way earlier, men are the default and women are the tag-along.

big_owl

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 555
Do the comparison you have in real life - dogs versus horses.  People watch horse racing, people watch greyhound racing, they are both valid sports.  Can the be competitive on the same track?  NO.  So instead of looking at women's sports and seeing them as less interesting than the same men's sports (because of the physical presence professional male athletes bring to the game) why not see watching women's sports as a different sport and appreciate what they bring to the game?  Sort of like softball versus baseball, or giant slalom versus slalom.  Otherwise it is the same mind set mentioned way earlier, men are the default and women are the tag-along.

I don't watch enough sports to really care all that much I guess.  I only have so much time in the day to allot to watching sports and I'm not going to waste it watching anything but the best.  And of the three sports I have interest in - TnF, bbing, and motorcycle racing, only one of then even has women as an option to watch.  Maybe I would feel differently.if I was interested in team sports where the measure of success is less discrete. 

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9803
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Do the comparison you have in real life - dogs versus horses.  People watch horse racing, people watch greyhound racing, they are both valid sports.  Can the be competitive on the same track?  NO.  So instead of looking at women's sports and seeing them as less interesting than the same men's sports (because of the physical presence professional male athletes bring to the game) why not see watching women's sports as a different sport and appreciate what they bring to the game?  Sort of like softball versus baseball, or giant slalom versus slalom.  Otherwise it is the same mind set mentioned way earlier, men are the default and women are the tag-along.

I don't watch enough sports to really care all that much I guess.  I only have so much time in the day to allot to watching sports and I'm not going to waste it watching anything but the best.  And of the three sports I have interest in - TnF, bbing, and motorcycle racing, only one of then even has women as an option to watch.  Maybe I would feel differently.if I was interested in team sports where the measure of success is less discrete.

My comment was about how we set up comparisons.  If your favourite sports only have men competing (and why, I wonder) then you will obviously be watching men competing.  But it is the "Men's sports are the norm that women's sports have to be compared to" attitude that I wanted to challenge.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12357
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
One mental question I toy with sometimes is how to make a team sport everyone can play. Something men, women, and people with tall and stocky physiques can play together as a team with each making equal contributions. 

Bonus if you can add people in wheelchairs.

There's gotta be a way that you could rig motorsports to fit this category.  No reason a woman couldn't drive a race car as well as a man, and with accommodations made for the disabilities (some kind of hand rather than pedal accelerator/braking system) I think a fit person without legs would be able to drive pretty well too.

yakamashii

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 100
  • Location: Japan
One mental question I toy with sometimes is how to make a team sport everyone can play. Something men, women, and people with tall and stocky physiques can play together as a team with each making equal contributions. 

Bonus if you can add people in wheelchairs.

There's gotta be a way that you could rig motorsports to fit this category.  No reason a woman couldn't drive a race car as well as a man, and with accommodations made for the disabilities (some kind of hand rather than pedal accelerator/braking system) I think a fit person without legs would be able to drive pretty well too.

Pickleball bills itself as a game for everyone:

https://www.usapa.org/what-is-pickleball-a-game-for-everyone/

runbikerun

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
A few thoughts, in no particular order:

1. MGTOW is completely irrelevant, because it's a microscopic fringe movement based on weapons-grade bollocks. I appreciate that this sounds dismissive, but that's because it's meant to be. You should have seen what I was originally going to write.

2. I feel a little conflicted when it comes to live music, because I've spent more than a reasonable amount of time playing drums in bands that went nowhere. The heavy male bias you see on festival lineups is replicated at your local bar and even in rehearsal studios - for some reason, playing live non-classical music is a very male endeavour. I can't swear that I've seen ten women in rehearsal studios in my life. There is a very heavy bias in operation somewhere, but  it appears to be at a much deeper level than that of booking agents (although I don't doubt there are booking agents who will make sexist assumptions).

3. With sports, I think we're struggling against history: the idea of elite women's sports in a lot of disciplines is quite recent, and taking those women seriously is too often even more recent. It seems less of an issue in newer sports: triathlon, for example, started relatively recently and has adhered to a very strong standard of gender equality, and Daniela Ryf and Gwen Jorgensen get as much attention as Patrick Lange and Alastair Brownlee.

4. The post suggesting that men have real difficulty in not thinking about women in sexual terms is uncomfortably close to the truth. I don't like it about myself, but I do have a clear idea of whether I'm attracted to almost every woman I meet, regardless of whether it's relevant.

Dollar Slice

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3986
  • Age: 41
  • Location: New York City
2. I feel a little conflicted when it comes to live music, because I've spent more than a reasonable amount of time playing drums in bands that went nowhere. The heavy male bias you see on festival lineups is replicated at your local bar and even in rehearsal studios - for some reason, playing live non-classical music is a very male endeavour. I can't swear that I've seen ten women in rehearsal studios in my life. There is a very heavy bias in operation somewhere, but  it appears to be at a much deeper level than that of booking agents (although I don't doubt there are booking agents who will make sexist assumptions).

As far as I can tell, it starts in childhood and never stops. Little girls are not taught to play certain instruments (tuba, drums, trumpet, electric guitar/bass, trombone, etc.) and are strongly encouraged to play certain "ladylike" instruments (violin, piano, flute, voice, etc.). And women stepping out of the stereotype are discouraged at every step of the way by teachers, male musicians, promoters, club owners, etc.

I know a lot of musicians, and I'm amazed at some of the stuff that goes on even in a very progressive music scene. So many men that would seem like the most pro-equality, feminist people still don't hire women to be in their bands ever. Even as a fan I've gotten some weird sexist stuff - older men always seem amazed that a young looking woman knows anything about "their" style of music.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3467
2. I feel a little conflicted when it comes to live music, because I've spent more than a reasonable amount of time playing drums in bands that went nowhere. The heavy male bias you see on festival lineups is replicated at your local bar and even in rehearsal studios - for some reason, playing live non-classical music is a very male endeavour. I can't swear that I've seen ten women in rehearsal studios in my life. There is a very heavy bias in operation somewhere, but  it appears to be at a much deeper level than that of booking agents (although I don't doubt there are booking agents who will make sexist assumptions).

As far as I can tell, it starts in childhood and never stops. Little girls are not taught to play certain instruments (tuba, drums, trumpet, electric guitar/bass, trombone, etc.) and are strongly encouraged to play certain "ladylike" instruments (violin, piano, flute, voice, etc.). And women stepping out of the stereotype are discouraged at every step of the way by teachers, male musicians, promoters, club owners, etc.

I know a lot of musicians, and I'm amazed at some of the stuff that goes on even in a very progressive music scene. So many men that would seem like the most pro-equality, feminist people still don't hire women to be in their bands ever. Even as a fan I've gotten some weird sexist stuff - older men always seem amazed that a young looking woman knows anything about "their" style of music.

This. 1000 times this.

use2betrix

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1315
2. I feel a little conflicted when it comes to live music, because I've spent more than a reasonable amount of time playing drums in bands that went nowhere. The heavy male bias you see on festival lineups is replicated at your local bar and even in rehearsal studios - for some reason, playing live non-classical music is a very male endeavour. I can't swear that I've seen ten women in rehearsal studios in my life. There is a very heavy bias in operation somewhere, but  it appears to be at a much deeper level than that of booking agents (although I don't doubt there are booking agents who will make sexist assumptions).

As far as I can tell, it starts in childhood and never stops. Little girls are not taught to play certain instruments (tuba, drums, trumpet, electric guitar/bass, trombone, etc.) and are strongly encouraged to play certain "ladylike" instruments (violin, piano, flute, voice, etc.). And women stepping out of the stereotype are discouraged at every step of the way by teachers, male musicians, promoters, club owners, etc.

I know a lot of musicians, and I'm amazed at some of the stuff that goes on even in a very progressive music scene. So many men that would seem like the most pro-equality, feminist people still don't hire women to be in their bands ever. Even as a fan I've gotten some weird sexist stuff - older men always seem amazed that a young looking woman knows anything about "their" style of music.

While Iím very ďmale orientedĒ in things such as sports, movies, authors, Iím very pro female vocals when it comes to music. My last 2 concerts were two artist Iíve wanted to see more than anyone right now, both female.

In terms of bands, like rock bands, I can understand men wanting to keep their group male. Mostly in the same sense young males often hang out/go out in groups together. When it comes to sex and that lifestyle, having a woman could make things awkward.

In a sense, itís similar to outside work activities. At work, everyone is professional (usually) and many professions are a blend of men and women. However outside of work, or even work meetings that are just men, it can have a different, rougher tone. I am friends with a few guys at work and we hang out, outside of work, and one girl definitely gets offended when she isnít included. It sucks because we all love the girl, she is a blast, great sense of humor, but thereís just that fear that guys get together, outside of work, and someone says something jokingly and the woman can get really offended or look at you differently moving forward. It sucks, but itís not worth the risk. That being said, when there are obvious work activities, everyone is invited.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12357
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
In a sense, itís similar to outside work activities. At work, everyone is professional (usually) and many professions are a blend of men and women. However outside of work, or even work meetings that are just men, it can have a different, rougher tone. I am friends with a few guys at work and we hang out, outside of work, and one girl definitely gets offended when she isnít included. It sucks because we all love the girl, she is a blast, great sense of humor, but thereís just that fear that guys get together, outside of work, and someone says something jokingly and the woman can get really offended or look at you differently moving forward. It sucks, but itís not worth the risk. That being said, when there are obvious work activities, everyone is invited.

You could just . . . not say offensive stuff.  :P

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9803
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
In a sense, itís similar to outside work activities. At work, everyone is professional (usually) and many professions are a blend of men and women. However outside of work, or even work meetings that are just men, it can have a different, rougher tone. I am friends with a few guys at work and we hang out, outside of work, and one girl definitely gets offended when she isnít included. It sucks because we all love the girl, she is a blast, great sense of humor, but thereís just that fear that guys get together, outside of work, and someone says something jokingly and the woman can get really offended or look at you differently moving forward. It sucks, but itís not worth the risk. That being said, when there are obvious work activities, everyone is invited.

You could just . . . not say offensive stuff.  :P

use2betrix's reasoning was one of the reasons used to keep women out of the workforce, especially blue collar jobs (especially the ones that paid well).

Personally, due to the field I was in, I attended lots of outside work events which were massively male (lots of times there were only 1 or 2 women).  Not an issue, I guess I hung out professionally with a better grade of men.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2018, 11:59:03 AM by RetiredAt63 »

use2betrix

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1315
In a sense, itís similar to outside work activities. At work, everyone is professional (usually) and many professions are a blend of men and women. However outside of work, or even work meetings that are just men, it can have a different, rougher tone. I am friends with a few guys at work and we hang out, outside of work, and one girl definitely gets offended when she isnít included. It sucks because we all love the girl, she is a blast, great sense of humor, but thereís just that fear that guys get together, outside of work, and someone says something jokingly and the woman can get really offended or look at you differently moving forward. It sucks, but itís not worth the risk. That being said, when there are obvious work activities, everyone is invited.

You could just . . . not say offensive stuff.  :P

use2betrix's reasoning was one of the reasons used to keep women out of the workforce, especially blue collar jobs (especially the ones that paid well).

Personally, due to the field I was in, I attended lots of outside work events which were massively male (lots of times there were only 1 or 2 women).  Not an issue, I guess I hung out professionally with a better grade of men.

Or maybe they were more professional because you were around? I donít expect that every group of women acts the exact same as they would if you threw a man from work in their group, and vice versa.

My reasoning has nothing to do with work whatsoever or women in the workforce. Itís purely for non-work related activities outside of work. We have ďteam buildingĒ events at least once a month in which everyone is invited to.

A few years back I worked in a woman dominated industry. A woman I worked with wanted to date me but I wasnít interested. She was mad so her and another girl came up with a ďplanĒ in the break room, to make up some story that I sexually harassed her. Fortunately, another lady I worked with and was good friends with overheard their entire plan. She immediately called me and told me and I left the building and immediately called HR. She was so upset that she could potentially tarnish my career for life and even from a legal perspective. That is the worse time something like that had happened, but a couple other similar scenarios as well.

Call it what you want, but I keep my work environment professional and strictly work related. I will unfortunately minimize the amount of time I would hang out with the opposite sex outside of work because of it. Easier to avoid it altogether.

That being said, my wife is always invited to all the work team buildings events, and is now friends with all the ladies I work with, so thatís good.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2018, 12:48:23 PM by use2betrix »

PoutineLover

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1016
Why am I not surprised that this thread turned into men defending their sexism..
Explain it however you like, but only watching men's sports is sexist. Only hanging out with male colleagues is sexist.
Women have been excluded from networking, sports, jobs, board positions, you name it, for most of history, and its ridiculous and upsetting that people still have these backwards attitudes, even here.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12357
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Explain it however you like, but only watching men's sports is sexist.

If you want to watch the best weightlifters in the world (for example) you will only watch men.  Women just cannot physically compete at the same level.  Sure it can be interesting to see how people people with a physical disadvantage do in competition . . . but there's naturally going to be less draw to that than watching the best of the best.  That's the same reason why the special Olympics aren't watched as much as the real Olympics.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3467
Explain it however you like, but only watching men's sports is sexist.

If you want to watch the best weightlifters in the world (for example) you will only watch men.  Women just cannot physically compete at the same level.  Sure it can be interesting to see how people people with a physical disadvantage do in competition . . . but there's naturally going to be less draw to that than watching the best of the best.  That's the same reason why the special Olympics aren't watched as much as the real Olympics.

Wow.

use2betrix

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1315
Explain it however you like, but only watching men's sports is sexist.

If you want to watch the best weightlifters in the world (for example) you will only watch men.  Women just cannot physically compete at the same level.  Sure it can be interesting to see how people people with a physical disadvantage do in competition . . . but there's naturally going to be less draw to that than watching the best of the best.  That's the same reason why the special Olympics aren't watched as much as the real Olympics.

Wow.

Well - some of the menís special Olympicís powerlifting numbers are actually higher than the numbers from the womenís categories at the regular olympics......

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9803
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Explain it however you like, but only watching men's sports is sexist.

If you want to watch the best weightlifters in the world (for example) you will only watch men.  Women just cannot physically compete at the same level.  Sure it can be interesting to see how people people with a physical disadvantage do in competition . . . but there's naturally going to be less draw to that than watching the best of the best.  That's the same reason why the special Olympics aren't watched as much as the real Olympics.
             
The top women in any sport are the best women in that sport.  The top men in any sport are the best men in that sport.  So if you don't want to watch the best women then you don't want to watch women.   You aren't watching the best weight-lifters, you are watching the best male weight lifters.  There is a difference. So do you only watch heavy-weight wrestling or boxing, and ignore all the other weight categories?                                                                                                     

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9803
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Or maybe they were more professional because you were around? I donít expect that every group of women acts the exact same as they would if you threw a man from work in their group, and vice versa.


Or maybe they were professional (relaxed but professional) because it was work-related?  I wouldn't expect an all woman group to suddenly act all unprofessional at an after-work but work-related event just because there were no men.  I've been in both situations (all women, or mostly women, work-related) lots of times, and the presence of the men didn't change things much.  Topics of conversation might vary a bit, but women stay on topic work-wise just as well as men - or maybe more so, given your example.

use2betrix

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1315
Or maybe they were more professional because you were around? I donít expect that every group of women acts the exact same as they would if you threw a man from work in their group, and vice versa.


Or maybe they were professional (relaxed but professional) because it was work-related?  I wouldn't expect an all woman group to suddenly act all unprofessional at an after-work but work-related event just because there were no men.  I've been in both situations (all women, or mostly women, work-related) lots of times, and the presence of the men didn't change things much.  Topics of conversation might vary a bit, but women stay on topic work-wise just as well as men - or maybe more so, given your example.

Aha - well thereís the difference.

When I hang out with those coworkers, itís not work related. We make every effort to not talk about work or our industry. We hang out as friends, not coworkers.

The entire project is invited to the work related functions. As such, they are all more professional.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9803
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Aha - well thereís the difference.

When I hang out with those coworkers, itís not work related. We make every effort to not talk about work or our industry. We hang out as friends, not coworkers.

To quote poutinelover
Women have been excluded from networking, sports, jobs, board positions, you name it, for most of history, and its ridiculous and upsetting that people still have these backwards attitudes, even here.

If you hang out with a small subset of your coworkers who are friends, you are hanging out with friends, not coworkers*.   Which means you would be more accurate to say you are hanging out with friends.  If you are hanging out with all or almost all of your male coworkers and not your female coworkers, you are hanging out with coworkers and doing exactly what poutinelover referenced, excluding the women but including the men who are coworkers.  Those outside-of-work colleague friendships are more commonly referred to as the "old boys' club" or "old boys' network".  Same old same old.

*I still hang our with some people who were friends at work and are still friends now that we are retired.  We met as colleagues but ended up as friends outside of work. And I think of them as friends I hang out with, not former colleagues I hang out with.   And some of them are male, how shocking.

use2betrix

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1315
Aha - well thereís the difference.

When I hang out with those coworkers, itís not work related. We make every effort to not talk about work or our industry. We hang out as friends, not coworkers.

To quote poutinelover
Women have been excluded from networking, sports, jobs, board positions, you name it, for most of history, and its ridiculous and upsetting that people still have these backwards attitudes, even here.

If you hang out with a small subset of your coworkers who are friends, you are hanging out with friends, not coworkers*.   Which means you would be more accurate to say you are hanging out with friends.  If you are hanging out with all or almost all of your male coworkers and not your female coworkers, you are hanging out with coworkers and doing exactly what poutinelover referenced, excluding the women but including the men who are coworkers.  Those outside-of-work colleague friendships are more commonly referred to as the "old boys' club" or "old boys' network".  Same old same old.

*I still hang our with some people who were friends at work and are still friends now that we are retired.  We met as colleagues but ended up as friends outside of work. And I think of them as friends I hang out with, not former colleagues I hang out with.   And some of them are male, how shocking.

I only hang out with two ďcoworkersĒ outside work who are friends. And in my entire career this is very very rare for me to hangout with coworkers outside work. This example has still upset other coworkers that werenít included.

Throughout most of history, women have had very different, yet still very important roles in society. In the 30ís, 40ís, and 50ís, not nearly as many women worked outside the home as today. Even today, women are more likely to be stay at home parents or work part time. That is *gasp* womenís choice to be sahm or work part time. I see women on Facebook complain alllll the time about ďwishingĒ they could be sahmís.

Whatís funny, is my wife and I are young (no kids, but plan to have some) and my wife doesnít work. She stays busy with things around where we live, hobbies, etc, but no work. Her earning potential simply isnít worthwhile for us with my income. I got flamed so hard on this forum in a thread because so many people thought she had it ďso badĒ to not work. But... whatís the difference between her not working and having one person in a couple FIRE before another? She doesnít work, has no money concerns, basically FIRE, yet our society is getting so conditioned to think that both spouses ďneedĒ to work for some reason? Kind of funny in a forum where it seems everyone goal is to ďnot work.Ē If anything, itís sad that so many peopleís spending is often so high that both couples need to work.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2018, 05:05:09 PM by use2betrix »

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9803
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada

If you hang out with a small subset of your coworkers who are friends, you are hanging out with friends, not coworkers*.   Which means you would be more accurate to say you are hanging out with friends.  If you are hanging out with all or almost all of your male coworkers and not your female coworkers, you are hanging out with coworkers and doing exactly what poutinelover referenced, excluding the women but including the men who are coworkers.  Those outside-of-work colleague friendships are more commonly referred to as the "old boys' club" or "old boys' network".  Same old same old.

I only hang out with two ďcoworkersĒ outside work who are friends. And in my entire career this is very very rare for me to hangout with coworkers outside work. This example has still upset other coworkers that werenít included.

Throughout most of history, women have had very different, yet still very important roles in society. In the 30ís, 40ís, and 50ís, not nearly as many women worked outside the home as today. Even today, women are more likely to be stay at home parents or work part time. That is *gasp* womenís choice to be sahm or work part time. I see women on Facebook complain alllll the time about ďwishingĒ they could be sahmís.

Whatís funny, is my wife and I are young (no kids, but plan to have some) and my wife doesnít work. She stays busy with things around where we live, hobbies, etc, but no work. Her earning potential simply isnít worthwhile for us with my income. I got flamed so hard on this forum in a thread because so many people thought she had it ďso badĒ to not work. But... whatís the difference between her not working and having one person in a couple FIRE before another? She doesnít work, has no money concerns, basically FIRE, yet our society is getting so conditioned to think that both spouses ďneedĒ to work for some reason? Kind of funny in a forum where it seems everyone goal is to ďnot work.Ē If anything, itís sad that so many peopleís spending is often so high that both couples need to work.

So you are hanging out with friends who you met at work, instead of meeting other ways.

I get the impression (so could very much be wrong) that part of the FIRE goal among married couples is that they get to retire together, and be able to do things together.

Re "work", the thing about a spouse (as you say, usually the woman) staying at home is that she may be working very hard indeed, especially if there are small children, but it is not paid work, so there is no income, no pension.  And it can be very socially isolating.   There have been enough comments on various divorce threads that a non-working spouse is "stealing" the working spouse's assets when assets are split, which denies that the "non-working" spouse was also contributing to the marital finances.  And of course the other reality is that a spouse (again usually the woman) is more likely to stay in a bad marriage if she has no financial resources, i.e. a job or easily employable job skills.  Judge Judy said the best divorce insurance is a good job.  I had friends tell me when I left that they were realizing that it was a good thing they were in a happy marriage, because they had no independent financial resources.  Their husbands did.

Anyway, we have strayed far from the topic and hi-jacked the discussion.  Let's give this part a rest and let others chime in on other aspects.

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4397
  • Age: 10
  • Location: USA
Explain it however you like, but only watching men's sports is sexist.

If you want to watch the best weightlifters in the world (for example) you will only watch men.  Women just cannot physically compete at the same level.  Sure it can be interesting to see how people people with a physical disadvantage do in competition . . . but there's naturally going to be less draw to that than watching the best of the best.  That's the same reason why the special Olympics aren't watched as much as the real Olympics.

Wow.
What's offensive here?

Women are behind men, at all competitive levels, in virtually every sport ever invented. Even in golf, they are behind because of inherent biological disadvantages. Unless humans change dramatically, it's not going to change.

I have no trouble "admitting" that I don't watch women's tennis. I find it too slow and don't feel like I'm watching the best that the sport has to offer. Of course any woman good enough to appear on TV would absolutely destroy me on the court, but that's beside the point. I don't decide which movies to watch based on my own acting skills either.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12357
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Explain it however you like, but only watching men's sports is sexist.

If you want to watch the best weightlifters in the world (for example) you will only watch men.  Women just cannot physically compete at the same level.  Sure it can be interesting to see how people people with a physical disadvantage do in competition . . . but there's naturally going to be less draw to that than watching the best of the best.  That's the same reason why the special Olympics aren't watched as much as the real Olympics.
             
The top women in any sport are the best women in that sport.  The top men in any sport are the best men in that sport.  So if you don't want to watch the best women then you don't want to watch women.   You aren't watching the best weight-lifters, you are watching the best male weight lifters.  There is a difference.

No.  The best weightlifters in the world in every weight class are men.  Men hold every record in weightlifting.  No woman has ever held a world record that was not significantly bested by a dude.  That's why women have a separate division entirely . . . because they are (to date) incapable of competing physically in the sport at the same level.  This isn't really controversial is it?

Don't get me wrong, top level women who do Olympic weightlifting are very strong, and can crush me in every lift.  But they're not the best in the world . . . and I only watch Olympic lifts once every four years for a few hours.  I just want to watch the best in the world and then forget about them for another four years.  :P


So do you only watch heavy-weight wrestling or boxing, and ignore all the other weight categories?
                                                                                                   

Again, no.  The heaviest weight classes because the tactics and techniques tend to be different than the ones that I use.  My preference is to watch the weight classes that I've fought in.  I have no issue with watching women or amateur fights . . . but the level of technique tends to not be as high, so neither would be my first choice.

koshtra

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 599
  • Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
  • massage therapist, database guy, worder
    • Mole
To me, the pleasure of sport is people excelling in complex difficult tasks, bringing training and grit and intelligence to a competition. The objective measure of their abilities doesn't really have much to do with why it's fun to watch. I guess this is why I gravitate to watching sports in which people play against each other, rather than against objective marks.

The farther down the road you go to objectively measurable "best in the world," the more you're just selecting for genetic freaks, and the less interesting it is to me. It's the real-time improvisation, the sprezzatura that appeals to me. When I watch Tobin Heath bully two defenders backwards just by her feet being never quite where either of them expect them to be -- I just take delight in that. It's the jeu d'esprit, it's human beings playing a silly game. (What could be sillier than knocking a ball around with your feet and arbitrarily deciding no one can use their hands? It's ridiculous, it's useless. I love it.)

To get that kind of delight you need to feel that the players are, in some sense, evenly matched -- if the players ranged against Heath were children, the delight would vanish, and it would suddenly look ugly rather than fun.

I think of men's and women's sports as more or less analogous to weight-classes in wrestling or boxing -- you don't want to see someone just pounding their opponent into the ground because they're a foot taller and fifty pounds heavier.

(Or maybe we watch sports precisely because we do want to see that. I hope not, though.)

Dollar Slice

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3986
  • Age: 41
  • Location: New York City
In terms of bands, like rock bands, I can understand men wanting to keep their group male. Mostly in the same sense young males often hang out/go out in groups together. When it comes to sex and that lifestyle, having a woman could make things awkward.

For the record, I wasn't referring to rock musicians - all the musicians I'm friendly with are jazz and classical and avant-garde. All-male bands are rampant in pretty much every genre. It's not because they're traveling the world banging groupies. Most of them are good guys in LTR or married and it just sort of doesn't occur to them that anyone who doesn't look like them should be in their band. Often because they hire their friends and they're not friends with anyone who doesn't look like them.

There are also guys who don't do that and it's immediately obvious who they are because they constantly hire people from other genders/races/religions. (I'm in NYC so "standard" white Christian men are a minority - a random selection of people is incredibly diverse here.) And those people have the best bands because they are picking up band members who are underrated/underutilized by the majority of people hiring... So instead of getting the twenty-fifth best guy, you get the 2nd best woman since women aren't getting hired. And music isn't weightlifting, so that woman is way better than the guy would have been.

As an aside, I'm really perplexed in general by people who don't have friends of other genders. I've heard people say it can't be done, which is obviously BS since I have tons of them. Gender doesn't define a person, it's just a facet of the personality. I'm frankly suspicious of men who don't have female friends, I figure there must be a reason women don't like to spend time with them! It's just so easy and normal to do, I don't get why some people see it as such a huge deal.

deborah

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8096
  • Location: At Home
There is also a sinister sidelight to barracking for teams. In my country, and I suspect it holds everywhere, when the professional menís teams are having finals or big televised matches, the number of domestic violence incidents that result in hospital admissions goes up significantly.

If we encouraged mixed teams and a more equitable sports coverage, I wonder weather domestic violence would decrease.

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
All-male bands are rampant in pretty much every genre. It's not because they're traveling the world banging groupies. Most of them are good guys in LTR or married and it just sort of doesn't occur to them that anyone who doesn't look like them should be in their band. Often because they hire their friends and they're not friends with anyone who doesn't look like them.

There are also guys who don't do that and it's immediately obvious who they are because they constantly hire people from other genders/races/religions. (I'm in NYC so "standard" white Christian men are a minority - a random selection of people is incredibly diverse here.) And those people have the best bands because they are picking up band members who are underrated/underutilized by the majority of people hiring... So instead of getting the twenty-fifth best guy, you get the 2nd best woman since women aren't getting hired. And music isn't weightlifting, so that woman is way better than the guy would have been.

I have other thoughts about this entire thread but I wanted to follow up on this item. Because yes, it is possible to recognize that straight white males have had the mic for a long time and that it might be a good idea to make a real effort to hand the mic off to other people sometimes, and it is possible for that effort to lead to an A-OK result. One example that comes to mind that might resonate here is the Lovett Or Leave It podcast. It's one of the popular Crooked Media productions, and you only have to listen a couple of times before clueing in to the fact that Lovett is making a real, consistent, ongoing effort to feature guests who are not straight white males.* His panels are usually majority female and often majority non-white. And people like his show! Woke millennial lefty dudes listen to it!

I'm getting a strong message here in this thread that liking dude stuff is natural and inevitable, and I'm taking this opportunity to firmly push back against that narrative. We're evolved beings with sophisticated brains. We can decide what we want to pay attention to.


*I truly have nothing against straight white males. The point is that we're already centering them and have done for millennia. Which leads to situations like the OP points out, where content from straight white males is considered standard and enjoyed by all, whereas content from other groups is considered weird and marginal.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2018, 03:04:37 AM by Cressida »

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Countdown to some bro commenting that he likes Lovett but hates his panels ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Finally: Sorry. I couldn't resist.

the MGTOW movement seems to be gaining steam.

No. Just, no. No it is not.

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1340
It seems less of an issue in newer sports: triathlon, for example, started relatively recently and has adhered to a very strong standard of gender equality, and Daniela Ryf and Gwen Jorgensen get as much attention as Patrick Lange and Alastair Brownlee.

This is true.  None of them gets any attention, so it's equal?

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1340
Explain it however you like, but only watching men's sports is sexist.

Not really.  The NBA is huge.  A WNBA game draws about as many fans as a good tiddlywinks competition.

Is that because of sexism, or just because the women are really, really bad at basketball?

Look at it this way, not many people pay a lot of attention to the NBDL/G-League (or other men's minor league basketball), either.  Why?  Because it's second rate basketball (though the worst players in the G-League are still vastly superior to anything in the WNBA).  People just don't want to spend money to watch poor performance. 

runbikerun

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
The question of sport is quite interesting: how much of the disparity in viewing figures between genders is the result of a difference in quality, and how much is inertia?

In a lot of sports, there's an argument to be made that ever-increasing fitness levels have left the men's game stale and dour. The comment earlier that women's football is more likely to be open and unpredictable than men's rings true: it's the same in rugby, as we now have the men's field being defended by fifteen professional athletes with massive physical strength, superb aerobic and anaerobic capacity, and recovery times measured in seconds. It's still a thrilling contest, but freewheeling seat-of-the-pants play has more or less vanished from the top level of the men's game and been replaced with carefully designed playing patterns.

In cycling, the problem is weirder: the men's tour is built around gruelling distances and race formats which remain unchanged since the 1950s, and has created at least three entirely separate categories of top-class rider, with no real way of saying definitively who the best cyclist is. We now have a situation where the biggest stage races of the year occur almost entirely while people are at work, and the biggest one-day races often stick to a format that makes no sense in the modern day. Milan-Sanremo is 294 kilometres long, and there are huge numbers of serious cycling fans who won't bother tuning in until the race is into the last 10, because 97% of one of the biggest races of the year is absolutely awful to watch. The women's races, for various reasons, tend to be about 130-160km, and so the women's calendar is packed full of races that last about three or four hours at most and feature all of the big names fighting each other. When Coryn Rivera went on a rampage and won almost everything she turned up to, she was the undisputed best in the peloton at that point. On an objective basis, the women's races are better to watch.

Sailor Sam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4153
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Steel Beach
  • Semper...something
This thread is surprising me. I'm not talking about the hyperbolic emotions of the internet, I'm genuinely taken aback. Posters are admire for their well organized and well articulated philosophies are flying an unapologetic flag of sexism. Many women have contributed, pointing to the sexism, and the same posters are still saying their responses are not sexist.

These same arguments of physicality and intelligence were used as part of Jim Crow. Yet here we all sit, having the same damn discussion, and these smart posters I admire are doubling down on their positions. It's bizarre.

use2betrix

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1315
In terms of bands, like rock bands, I can understand men wanting to keep their group male. Mostly in the same sense young males often hang out/go out in groups together. When it comes to sex and that lifestyle, having a woman could make things awkward.


As an aside, I'm really perplexed in general by people who don't have friends of other genders. I've heard people say it can't be done, which is obviously BS since I have tons of them. Gender doesn't define a person, it's just a facet of the personality. I'm frankly suspicious of men who don't have female friends, I figure there must be a reason women don't like to spend time with them! It's just so easy and normal to do, I don't get why some people see it as such a huge deal.

FYI - every point I above was strictly related to female coworker/friends. Aside from work functions, I typically do not hang out with female coworkers outside of work as ďfriendsĒ in the same capacity that I would some male coworkers. I have tons of female friends who are not associated with work that I talk to regularly with and will meet up with (typically with my wife as well).

Dollar Slice

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3986
  • Age: 41
  • Location: New York City
FYI - every point I above was strictly related to female coworker/friends. Aside from work functions, I typically do not hang out with female coworkers outside of work as ďfriendsĒ in the same capacity that I would some male coworkers. I have tons of female friends who are not associated with work that I talk to regularly with and will meet up with (typically with my wife as well).

I wasn't attacking you in that paragraph, I was referring to the earlier paragraph I wrote that you cut from the quote, about male musicians I know only hiring their friends (who are all men).

Although now I'm wondering why you're so defensive about it ;-)

runbikerun

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
The more I think about it, the less time I have for this idea that people are watching men's sports ahead of women's purely because the men are truly the best of the best. It's flatly and visibly untrue. College sports in the States draw massive crowds, despite the gulf in quality that separates them from pro sports -Texas A&M takes in almost as much in gate receipts as the Cleveland Browns, even though the Browns would utterly annihilate them on the field.

driftwood

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 271
This thread is surprising me. I'm not talking about the hyperbolic emotions of the internet, I'm genuinely taken aback. Posters are admire for their well organized and well articulated philosophies are flying an unapologetic flag of sexism. Many women have contributed, pointing to the sexism, and the same posters are still saying their responses are not sexist.

These same arguments of physicality and intelligence were used as part of Jim Crow. Yet here we all sit, having the same damn discussion, and these smart posters I admire are doubling down on their positions. It's bizarre.

It may very well be sexism. I honestly don't care whether something is labeled sexism/sexist or not. Ok, you put a label on it. But what's your solution? Should men feel guilty for only wanting to watch men's sports? If so, should women feel guilty for not supporting women's supports to the same level men's sports are supported? People will spend their time and money to support events they want to watch. Posters on here mentioned specific examples of wanting to watch both women's and men's sports for different reasons.

I guess my point is, for sports, that every single person who watches sports will gravitate towards a sport that attracts them. You can point at racism or sexism but that doesn't change what they're attracted to.

Sailor Sam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4153
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Steel Beach
  • Semper...something
This thread is surprising me. I'm not talking about the hyperbolic emotions of the internet, I'm genuinely taken aback. Posters are admire for their well organized and well articulated philosophies are flying an unapologetic flag of sexism. Many women have contributed, pointing to the sexism, and the same posters are still saying their responses are not sexist.

These same arguments of physicality and intelligence were used as part of Jim Crow. Yet here we all sit, having the same damn discussion, and these smart posters I admire are doubling down on their positions. It's bizarre.

It may very well be sexism. I honestly don't care whether something is labeled sexism/sexist or not. Ok, you put a label on it. But what's your solution? Should men feel guilty for only wanting to watch men's sports? If so, should women feel guilty for not supporting women's supports to the same level men's sports are supported? People will spend their time and money to support events they want to watch. Posters on here mentioned specific examples of wanting to watch both women's and men's sports for different reasons.

I guess my point is, for sports, that every single person who watches sports will gravitate towards a sport that attracts them. You can point at racism or sexism but that doesn't change what they're attracted to.

You've misinterpreted the point of my original post. My surprise is not over sports. My surprise is over posters using such trite and recycled language to justify their biases.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12357
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
In cycling, the problem is weirder: the men's tour is built around gruelling distances and race formats which remain unchanged since the 1950s, and has created at least three entirely separate categories of top-class rider, with no real way of saying definitively who the best cyclist is. We now have a situation where the biggest stage races of the year occur almost entirely while people are at work, and the biggest one-day races often stick to a format that makes no sense in the modern day. Milan-Sanremo is 294 kilometres long, and there are huge numbers of serious cycling fans who won't bother tuning in until the race is into the last 10, because 97% of one of the biggest races of the year is absolutely awful to watch. The women's races, for various reasons, tend to be about 130-160km, and so the women's calendar is packed full of races that last about three or four hours at most and feature all of the big names fighting each other. When Coryn Rivera went on a rampage and won almost everything she turned up to, she was the undisputed best in the peloton at that point. On an objective basis, the women's races are better to watch.

I agree.  Cycling is really about the jockeying for position, timing, and other elements of race-craft.  The women's cycling that I've seen is at least as (if not more) exciting than the men's stuff.  The sad thing is that there are no multi-week stage races for women's cycling.  The Tour de France, the Vuelta, the Giro, all dudes only.  I would watch a women's version of the Tour over a men's version (especially given how Sky kinda makes the men's Tour less and less fun to watch every year).

My argument above about an upper level technique difference is not true across all sport.  It was specific to certain combat sports (BJJ, Judo, Wrestling, Boxing, and Muay Thai).  It's not even true across all combat sports.  Olympic Taewkondo for example, the competition between men and women is pretty evenly matched technique-wise.

Caroline PF

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 50
Throughout most of history, women have had very different, yet still very important roles in society. In the 30ís, 40ís, and 50ís, not nearly as many women worked outside the home as today. Even today, women are more likely to be stay at home parents or work part time. That is *gasp* womenís choice to be sahm or work part time. I see women on Facebook complain alllll the time about ďwishingĒ they could be sahmís.

I just wanted to address this. Yes, women are choosing to stay home, or work part-time, but it is not a decision that is made in a vacuum. They are assessing a bunch of different factors in that decision, and there are a lot of systemic issues that make staying at home more palatable for women. You actually address one in your next paragraph.

Whatís funny, is my wife and I are young (no kids, but plan to have some) and my wife doesnít work. She stays busy with things around where we live, hobbies, etc, but no work. Her earning potential simply isnít worthwhile for us with my income.

A big reason that she stays home is that her earning potential is much less than yours. So unless she absolutely loved her job, why would she keep working? And why is her earning potential so much lower? Her individual choices, of course, but there are systemic, sexist reasons why women end up in lower paying jobs. To start with, back in the 30s to 50s, it was legal to pay women less than a man for the same work. So careers that attracted women were paid less for blatantly sexist reasons. And those careers are still paid less due to inertia, and justified by saying (incorrectly) that free-market just doesn't value those contributions as much, and it's not our fault women like that kind of work (not to mention the cultural forces telling girls and boys what careers they should or should not be interested in when they grow up).

The problem with sexism (and racism) today is that, with rare exceptions, it is not blatant anymore. There are entrenched systemic issues that are not easily seen or fixed, but all people hear when they hear women cry sexism, is 'mad men' type blatant sexism that really isn't a problem anymore.

So nowadays, a woman and a man in the same role, same job, are generally paid the same. But men tend to end up in higher paying careers due to residual effects from blatant sexism decades ago.

And mothers are excluded from promotion tracks because it's 'common knowledge' that a woman will value her children over her career, so don't bother promoting her, cause she'll end up wanting to go part time anyway. And then she eventually does go part time because she has been passed over for promotion repeatedly, while her husband has been promoted several times. So now he makes more, and it makes financial sense for her to go part-time rather than him. And those who originally passed her over feel justified in their decision.

The woman who doesn't have kids avoids that particular booby-trap, but is still promoted at a lesser rate than men if there is a boys' club mentality. It is perfectly natural for those in power to promote their friends, and those that they know well. So if there is a robust friend network that excludes women (because our language might get raunchy and offend; or women just won't be interested in what men are), then promotions will naturally go to the friend group, and to men. Or even worse than the boys club is the leader who won't spend time alone with women (aka Pence) in order to protect his moral purity. So now he can mentor young men into a promotion track, but women are excluded.

All of these things are little, but they are cumulative. And they are hard to eradicate because they are not blatant.



To get this back to the fanboy discussion, I don't believe that most people are being sexist in their choices. Instead I think that our system is set up to favor men, and they are seen as mainstream. So men are promoted and shown more, so more people are exposed to them and like them. For instance, if I want to watch sports on OTA television, I don't have any options other than the most popular (aka mens' sports). And if I have cable or internet, there are simply many more male options than female. Many other posters have pointed this out.

wordnerd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1180
The more I think about it, the less time I have for this idea that people are watching men's sports ahead of women's purely because the men are truly the best of the best. It's flatly and visibly untrue. College sports in the States draw massive crowds, despite the gulf in quality that separates them from pro sports -Texas A&M takes in almost as much in gate receipts as the Cleveland Browns, even though the Browns would utterly annihilate them on the field.

Yes, and people watch the MFing Little League World Series on TV. I think elite female athletes might have the edge on large 12 year olds.

OneStep

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Location: KC Metro
The more I think about it, the less time I have for this idea that people are watching men's sports ahead of women's purely because the men are truly the best of the best. It's flatly and visibly untrue. College sports in the States draw massive crowds, despite the gulf in quality that separates them from pro sports -Texas A&M takes in almost as much in gate receipts as the Cleveland Browns, even though the Browns would utterly annihilate them on the field.

Yes, and people watch the MFing Little League World Series on TV. I think elite female athletes might have the edge on large 12 year olds.

The was obviously just a scrimmage and I'm sure the boys were trying much harder than the professional women were which the article alludes too. Most people wouldn't read the article but would see that headline that high school freshman and under beat the US Women's soccer team. Interested anecdote.
https://usatodayhss.com/2017/the-fc-dallas-u-15-academy-team-beat-the-u-s-women-s-national-team-5-2

wordnerd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1180
The more I think about it, the less time I have for this idea that people are watching men's sports ahead of women's purely because the men are truly the best of the best. It's flatly and visibly untrue. College sports in the States draw massive crowds, despite the gulf in quality that separates them from pro sports -Texas A&M takes in almost as much in gate receipts as the Cleveland Browns, even though the Browns would utterly annihilate them on the field.

Yes, and people watch the MFing Little League World Series on TV. I think elite female athletes might have the edge on large 12 year olds.

The was obviously just a scrimmage and I'm sure the boys were trying much harder than the professional women were which the article alludes too. Most people wouldn't read the article but would see that headline that high school freshman and under beat the US Women's soccer team. Interested anecdote.
https://usatodayhss.com/2017/the-fc-dallas-u-15-academy-team-beat-the-u-s-women-s-national-team-5-2

And Billie Jean King beat Billy Riggs, so what ever will we think now?! Anecdata are helpful to people who want to support their preexisting narratives about the world, especially narratives that reinforce their privilege or sense of superiority.

I'm not surprised this discussion has turned to sports because that's the one area where there's the fig leaf of "biological differences" to cover the sexism. Female writers and musicians suffer from the same systemic inequities because the issue is sexism not how hard somebody can kick a ball.

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
I'm not surprised this discussion has turned to sports because that's the one area where there's the fig leaf of "biological differences" to cover the sexism. Female writers and musicians suffer from the same systemic inequities because the issue is sexism not how hard somebody can kick a ball.

Exactly. The sports thing is a distraction.

use2betrix

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1315
The more I think about it, the less time I have for this idea that people are watching men's sports ahead of women's purely because the men are truly the best of the best. It's flatly and visibly untrue. College sports in the States draw massive crowds, despite the gulf in quality that separates them from pro sports -Texas A&M takes in almost as much in gate receipts as the Cleveland Browns, even though the Browns would utterly annihilate them on the field.

Yes, and people watch the MFing Little League World Series on TV. I think elite female athletes might have the edge on large 12 year olds.

12 year olds maybe. But a quick google search shows me that boys high school track records in the 100m, 200m, 400m, and 800m, are all faster than the olympics womenís numbers. I didnít bother looking further, but I would t be surprised if the high school boys track records beat the Olympic womenís in the majority of track and field events.

use2betrix

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1315
Throughout most of history, women have had very different, yet still very important roles in society. In the 30ís, 40ís, and 50ís, not nearly as many women worked outside the home as today. Even today, women are more likely to be stay at home parents or work part time. That is *gasp* womenís choice to be sahm or work part time. I see women on Facebook complain alllll the time about ďwishingĒ they could be sahmís.

I just wanted to address this. Yes, women are choosing to stay home, or work part-time, but it is not a decision that is made in a vacuum. They are assessing a bunch of different factors in that decision, and there are a lot of systemic issues that make staying at home more palatable for women. You actually address one in your next paragraph.

Whatís funny, is my wife and I are young (no kids, but plan to have some) and my wife doesnít work. She stays busy with things around where we live, hobbies, etc, but no work. Her earning potential simply isnít worthwhile for us with my income.

A big reason that she stays home is that her earning potential is much less than yours. So unless she absolutely loved her job, why would she keep working? And why is her earning potential so much lower? Her individual choices, of course, but there are systemic, sexist reasons why women end up in lower paying jobs. To start with, back in the 30s to 50s, it was legal to pay women less than a man for the same work. So careers that attracted women were paid less for blatantly sexist reasons. And those careers are still paid less due to inertia, and justified by saying (incorrectly) that free-market just doesn't value those contributions as much, and it's not our fault women like that kind of work (not to mention the cultural forces telling girls and boys what careers they should or should not be interested in when they grow up).

The problem with sexism (and racism) today is that, with rare exceptions, it is not blatant anymore. There are entrenched systemic issues that are not easily seen or fixed, but all people hear when they hear women cry sexism, is 'mad men' type blatant sexism that really isn't a problem anymore.

So nowadays, a woman and a man in the same role, same job, are generally paid the same. But men tend to end up in higher paying careers due to residual effects from blatant sexism decades ago.

And mothers are excluded from promotion tracks because it's 'common knowledge' that a woman will value her children over her career, so don't bother promoting her, cause she'll end up wanting to go part time anyway. And then she eventually does go part time because she has been passed over for promotion repeatedly, while her husband has been promoted several times. So now he makes more, and it makes financial sense for her to go part-time rather than him. And those who originally passed her over feel justified in their decision.

The woman who doesn't have kids avoids that particular booby-trap, but is still promoted at a lesser rate than men if there is a boys' club mentality. It is perfectly natural for those in power to promote their friends, and those that they know well. So if there is a robust friend network that excludes women (because our language might get raunchy and offend; or women just won't be interested in what men are), then promotions will naturally go to the friend group, and to men. Or even worse than the boys club is the leader who won't spend time alone with women (aka Pence) in order to protect his moral purity. So now he can mentor young men into a promotion track, but women are excluded.

All of these things are little, but they are cumulative. And they are hard to eradicate because they are not blatant.



To get this back to the fanboy discussion, I don't believe that most people are being sexist in their choices. Instead I think that our system is set up to favor men, and they are seen as mainstream. So men are promoted and shown more, so more people are exposed to them and like them. For instance, if I want to watch sports on OTA television, I don't have any options other than the most popular (aka mens' sports). And if I have cable or internet, there are simply many more male options than female. Many other posters have pointed this out.

This is a good post. Thereís a few small points I could disagree with, but you didnít fall back on so many blatant misconceptions regarding men/women pay that the media falsely portrays. And you make a lot of good points I donít regularly see made. Thanks.

wordnerd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1180
@Nick_Miller are you still listening? This thread has somewhat predictably led to sexist tropes being trotted out. A lot of people (mostly women) are having to read them and reply to them, which is emotionally difficult, to answer your question. It would be nice to know that you're still here and at least reading...