nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Off Topic Thread 3.0

Zzippy

All things non-rugby related here.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

sullivlo

I was skimming and incorrectly read that it was a quota for general representation / jobs.

I was involved in womens rugby from around 2003. The shift in attitude from then to now is staggering. I don't think that needed women on the committee of sports bodies to happen, but from my own experience, having women on the committee of sports bodies helped the cause.

Should it be mandatory? No.

Would it be handy? Yes.

Connacht2KXX

sullivlo wrote: »

Yeah if you could point out where in my post I mentioned abortion, I'd really appreciate it.

Also a man can, of course, research and come to a logical conclusion. But is he really going to care about an issue that doesn't impact him? Does anyone outside of Kerry really care enough to campaign for whatever it is the Healy-Raes are campaigning for now? There's a reason we have rural and urban based TDs. Some city dwellers wouldn't be able to tell the difference between slurry and silage - are they really going to care enough to lobby the right people? Or are they going to stick with something they have experience with. Like traffic management or whatever.

A man can represent a woman, but I think its easier for a woman to represent a woman because they find it easier to think like a woman because they are women.

I was using abortion as an example.

So person A won't help person B if a particular issue doesn't affect person A? I volunteer at a homeless shelter but why on earth would I do that since their issues don't affect me? I have friends who went over to Africa to provide medical services 2 summers ago but why would they do that considering they have money, Africans are poor and Africa's issues don't affect their issues? You see how this goes right?

I honestly don't give a shít about the gender of the person who represents me in the Dail or on a sports council, provided they will do a better job compared to the other candidates.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

irishbucsfan wrote: »

OK, so there's just a misunderstanding here. You said they are necessary to ensure progress. That means they are essential, IE they must be in place to ensure progress. It may not have been your opinion, but it is 100% what you said in the original post.

That's what I disagree with. There's just not enough evidence for it for me to be used in the first instance and actually could be damaging.

I think they need to be in place now but the goal should be that they aren't necessary and that's where it's important to implement other measures to get to that point.

If people who can't do the job are being hired then that's damaging. Given women have equal access to education now there should be no reason why this is the case though. I am talking very specifically about this case though. I'vr already mentioned South African rugby as an example of where quotas at the top are pointless and don't work.

None of these things are black and white issues though. To think there is one clear way of solving any of it would be extremely short sighted.

For what it's worth, where quotas are in place, it shouldn't be made public. It gives those who want it a massive stick to beat any woman employed under such a scheme with and does more harm than good.

irishbucsfan

sullivlo wrote: »

I was skimming and incorrectly read that it was a quota for general representation / jobs.

I was involved in womens rugby from around 2003. The shift in attitude from then to now is staggering. I don't think that needed women on the committee of sports bodies to happen, but from my own experience, having women on the committee of sports bodies helped the cause.

Should it be mandatory? No.

Would it be handy? Yes.

I agree with you and I think naturally over time we'll see more and more women involved at the top in rugby as the women's game continues to professionalise and mature. I don't think we need quotas for that to happen, I think we just need to set a target and then publically report on the current figures (just like the 30% club have done, which has been successful).

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Felix Jones is God wrote: »

So...men can't represent women on sports bodies as we don't care about vat on Tampax is what it all boils down to

A vaguely related example.....

Novak Djokovic last year was talking about the prize money debate in tennis. He thinks men should be paid more, an opinion he's entitled to have, but.... While trying to ensure he didn't come across as sexist he launched into some speel about how amazing he thinks woman are because they don't curl up into a ball and die when they have their period. He didn't word it exacrly like that, mainly because he couldn't bring himself to say the word "period" or "menstruation". He kind of hinted at it like a giggling school boy.

Now, here is a man vocally calling for women to be paid less than men, despite the fact there is no logical way to implant that, and he thinks he'll win the female players over by vaguely hinting at the fact they compete week in week out and don't have to go home and die for one week a month.

It's a very loose example of one man not having a clue but I have had plenty of experience in my own life of men not having an earthly clue about menstruation. To be clear, women are not defined by what their ovaries do once a month, however it is a major factor in being a woman, especially in a sporting environment.

Teferi

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

A vaguely related example.....

Novak Djokovic last year was talking about the prize money debate in tennis. He thinks men should be paid more, an opinion he's entitled to have, but.... While trying to ensure he didn't come across as sexist he launched into some speel about how amazing he thinks woman are because they don't curl up into a ball and die when they have their period. He didn't word it exacrly like that, mainly because he couldn't bring himself to say the word "period" or "menstruation". He kind of hinted at it like a giggling school boy.

Now, here is a man vocally calling for women to be paid less than men, despite the fact there is no logical way to implant that, and he thinks he'll win the female players over by vaguely hinting at the fact they compete week in week out and don't have to go home and die for one week a month.

It's a very loose example of one man not having a clue but I have had plenty of experience in my own life of men not having an earthly clue about menstruation. To be clear, women are not defined by what their ovaries do once a month, however it is a major factor in being a woman, especially in a sporting environment.

The male versions of whatever sport you fancy generally brings in more money. Why would someone who brings in less money be paid the same?

Teferi

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Show me where I said his opinion was wrong, or that he is intellectually compromised due to being a white man?

I'm always interested to know where an Irish person has developed their sense of social justice when they start mentioning things like race. Traditionally, Ireland hasn't institutionalised racism against PoC and seeing that 97% of the population is white it would hard to classify it as a 'privilege'. Plenty of casual racism mind and we could increase support to non-EU migrants, but we've never really institutionalised anything like the US.

[Deleted User]

Teferi wrote: »

The male versions of whatever sport you fancy generally brings in more money. Why would someone who brings in less money be paid the same?

Well the argument behind this is that both people are doing the same job but in most sales jobs with a commission aspect the person who bills more makes more regardless of gender so not sure how relevant it is.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Teferi wrote: »

The male versions of whatever sport you fancy generally brings in more money. Why would someone who brings in less money be paid the same?

I'm not getting into this because it's an endless argument but basically..... how can you pay people based on how much money they bring in? Serena Williams brings in more money than Giles Simon, for example, so how do you divide the pay there? Should a man ranked 30th get more money than a woman ranked 5th just because people buy tickets to see Nadal?

The other argument is that at slams men play best of five, women play best of three, so men should be paid more. Men often make it to the SF or Final without having to play more than 3 sets. Women can have to play 3 sets the whole way through if they get a tough draw. Then how do you do it? Pay by set? Then you open your possibility of players deliberately dropping sets to get a bigger pay day.

Point is, nobody has been able to suggest a fairer way of doing it and until they can thr current system should remain.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Teferi wrote: »

I'm always interested to know where an Irish person has developed their sense of social justice when they start mentioning things like race. Traditionally, Ireland hasn't institutionalised racism against PoC and seeing that 97% of the population is white it would hard to classify it as a 'privilege'. Plenty of casual racism mind and we could increase support to non-EU migrants, but we've never really institutionalised anything like the US.

Why can't we have a sense of social justice? Ireland was an oppressed nation for centuries, between Britain and the Catholic Church. Being Irish in 2016 is not the same as being African in the slave trade era, or being a Syrian refugee, but we were once in these positions, we're a nation of emigrants, we have faced discrimination as we did it. There were people who fought our cause then and I see no reason why we shouldn't fight other people's causes now.

Felix Jones is God

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

A vaguely related example.....

Novak Djokovic last year was talking about the prize money debate in tennis. He thinks men should be paid more, an opinion he's entitled to have, but.... While trying to ensure he didn't come across as sexist he launched into some speel about how amazing he thinks woman are because they don't curl up into a ball and die when they have their period. He didn't word it exacrly like that, mainly because he couldn't bring himself to say the word "period" or "menstruation". He kind of hinted at it like a giggling school boy.

Now, here is a man vocally calling for women to be paid less than men, despite the fact there is no logical way to implant that, and he thinks he'll win the female players over by vaguely hinting at the fact they compete week in week out and don't have to go home and die for one week a month.

It's a very loose example of one man not having a clue but I have had plenty of experience in my own life of men not having an earthly clue about menstruation. To be clear, women are not defined by what their ovaries do once a month, however it is a major factor in being a woman, especially in a sporting environment.

Actually, tennis is probably the one sport where there definitely should not be pay parity

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Felix Jones is God wrote: »

Actually, tennis is probably the one sport where there definitely should not be pay parity

Tell me how you do it fairly any other way then?

Also the point of that post wasn't the debate over pay.

irishbucsfan

Felix Jones is God wrote: »

Actually, tennis is probably the one sport where there definitely should not be pay parity

Tennis is one of the closest sports in terms of pay parity. At least in all the big tournaments the prize money is nominally equal and that's a lot of money.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Tell me how you do it fairly any other way then?

Also the point of that post wasn't the debate over pay.

It would be pretty easy to just change the amount of prize money between the different events. They already prioritise singles over doubles, they could do the same with men/women's events and equate it to the revenue they generate.

Connacht2KXX

Teferi wrote: »

I'm always interested to know where an Irish person has developed their sense of social justice when they start mentioning things like race.

They just regurgitate the nonsense they hear from the US and buzzfeed and that crap.

I've come to realise that everyone, in their own right, is a sheep. I always criticised religious people for following what some ancient hippy and not thinking for themselves but now we have those social justice people who buy into their own ideology and follow it without use their own critical factories. Same idiots, different cause.

Teferi

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I'm not getting into this because it's an endless argument but basically..... how can you pay people based on how much money they bring in? Serena Williams brings in more money than Giles Simon, for example, so how do you divide the pay there? Should a man ranked 30th get more money than a woman ranked 5th just because people buy tickets to see Nadal?

The other argument is that at slams men play best of five, women play best of three, so men should be paid more. Men often make it to the SF or Final without having to play more than 3 sets. Women can have to play 3 sets the whole way through if they get a tough draw. Then how do you do it? Pay by set? Then you open your possibility of players deliberately dropping sets to get a bigger pay day.

Point is, nobody has been able to suggest a fairer way of doing it and until they can thr current system should remain.

Men are objectively better than women at most sports. Surely it is only fair that they earn more?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Why can't we have a sense of social justice? Ireland was an oppressed nation for centuries, between Britain and the Catholic Church. Being Irish in 2016 is not the same as being African in the slave trade era, or being a Syrian refugee, but we were once in these positions, we're a nation of emigrants, we have faced discrimination as we did it. There were people who fought our cause then and I see no reason why we shouldn't fight other people's causes now.

You've completely misunderstood what I said. When you say 'White Man' why does race come into in the context of Ireland for the reasons I outlined above?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It would be pretty easy to just change the amount of prize money between the different events. They already prioritise singles over doubles, they could do the same with men/women's events and equate it to the revenue they generate.

There's only a handful of events where the men and women play the same tournament and prize money becomes an issue.
As I've already outlined that isn't a fair system as you'll get men being paid more than the top women based on one or two players at the top drawing a bigger crowd. The order of play for events is done the night before, when tickets are already sold, so there's no real way of knowing who paid to see who.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Teferi wrote: »

You've completely misunderstood what I said. When you say 'White Man' why does race come into in the context of Ireland for the reasons I outlined above?

Because Western civilization has been defined by white men. If you're going to have a sense of social justice then you can't pick and choose your causes. I want equality for women but don't care about racial equality? Doesn't work that way. We're not an isolated little island anymore either. Everything is global and has knock on effects.

irishbucsfan

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

There's only a handful of events where the men and women play the same tournament and prize money becomes an issue.
As I've already outlined that isn't a fair system as you'll get men being paid more than the top women based on one or two players at the top drawing a bigger crowd. The order of play for events is done the night before, when tickets are already sold, so there's no real way of knowing who paid to see who.

Oh, I'm sure the people involved know exactly which players are worth the most. Tickets are not the biggest factor in prize money by a long margin. I don't know those figures but I see from the Wimbledon site that the men's singles final had 13.3m viewers in 2016 while the ladies' final had 4.8m viewers, that's a massive difference.

Look at sports like boxing where prize money on a card is variable, they use a few different factors to determine the value (and a lot of that comes down to direct negotiation due to the nature of the events).

Teferi

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Because Western civilization has been defined by white men. If you're going to have a sense of social justice then you can't pick and choose your causes. I want equality for women but don't care about racial equality? Doesn't work that way. We're not an isolated little island anymore either. Everything is global and has knock on effects.

What has gender quotas in Irish sporting bodies go to do with the rest of the world?

Again, when you say 'White Man' why does race come into in the context of Ireland for the reasons I outlined above?

swiwi_

I haven't read through what seems like off-topic even for the off-topic thread...but my single contribution is to state that since women receive the same prize money as men at Wimbledon, 5 sets in the final please.

Dirty Dingus McGee

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

There's only a handful of events where the men and women play the same tournament and prize money becomes an issue.
As I've already outlined that isn't a fair system as you'll get men being paid more than the top women based on one or two players at the top drawing a bigger crowd. The order of play for events is done the night before, when tickets are already sold, so there's no real way of knowing who paid to see who.

Why is the cost of going to a mens grand slam final much higher than going to a female grand slam final?

The bodies running the event are saying on the basis of price that the men are worth more but yet they get paid the same for the grand slams.

I don't have a problem with the female players getting paid the same as it's good for the game of tennis that the womens sport is so high profile (it's probably the only major sport in the world where the female version comes close to the male version) but it's very contradictory to charge a higher admission fee for a men's grand slam final and yet not pay them more money.

Connacht2KXX

Teferi wrote: »

Men are objectively better than women at most sports. Surely it is only fair that they earn more?

Disagree. You should get paid in proportion to how much money you make for the company/what you contribute.

Male tennis players attract more viewers and more attendees so they make more revenue compared to the female tennis players so they should get paid more.

Stheno

Someone needs to start a "rob kearney is a better full back than zebo" thread

Teferi

swiwi_ wrote: »

I haven't read through what seems like off-topic even for the off-topic thread...but my single contribution is to state that since women receive the same prize money as men at Wimbledon, 5 sets in the final please.

TLDR:

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Oh, I'm sure the people involved know exactly which players are worth the most. Tickets are not the biggest factor in prize money by a long margin. I don't know those figures but I see from the Wimbledon site that the men's singles final had 13.3m viewers in 2016 while the ladies' final had 4.8m viewers, that's a massive difference.

Look at sports like boxing where prize money on a card is variable, they use a few different factors to determine the value (and a lot of that comes down to direct negotiation due to the nature of the events).

2016 Wimbledon final had Andy Murray in it so it was always going to get huge numbers. The US Open final a few years ago between Cilic and Nishikori had lower figures than the women's final. People couldn't give their tickets away for it.

Men's tennis is boringly predictable and has been for years. You could buy a ticket a year in advance and be pretty sure you'd see one of four players, of not two. Women's tennis has been more open, Serena aside, so you could end up seeing anyone in the final. People are less inclined to pay big for those tickets in advance.

All I am saying is that any alternatives I've seen put forward make it unfair somewhere else along the line.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

swiwi_ wrote: »

I haven't read through what seems like off-topic even for the off-topic thread...but my single contribution is to state that since women receive the same prize money as men at Wimbledon, 5 sets in the final please.

Women have repeatedly offered to play 5, organisers are against it because it makes scheduling more difficult. Men could easily play best of 3 instead making scheduling much easier but it's never been put forward as an option by the ATP players. Which makes it seem like they're more interested in being paid more than the women than having a fair pay system.

irishbucsfan

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

2016 Wimbledon final had Andy Murray in it so it was always going to get huge numbers.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Teferi wrote: »

What has gender quotas in Irish sporting bodies go to do with the rest of the world?

Again, when you say 'White Man' why does race come into in the context of Ireland for the reasons I outlined above?

I said "white male" in relation to how it's a privileged position to be in. To say you can't know what it's like to be discriminated against because you're a man would be inaccurate. As IBF pointed out men are often discriminated against but it's never for just being a man, it's for being a gay man, or a black man, or a Muslim man etc.

sydthebeat

It's just simply more of the propaganda to make straight white males feel guilty for nothing.

[Deleted User]

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I said "white male" in relation to how it's a privileged position to be in. .

Amazing how despite all their privilege white men in Ireland die substantially younger than white women, work typically much longer hours and much later into their life and commit suicide in far higher numbers. Might avail of the aul sex change if it gets me an extra decade or so.