Despite the hoopla, judge smacks down US women's soccer team
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Also what a dumb thing to point out. Doubt the women’s team was playing 100% against kids. Eye roll. |
Now that's embarassing!
Anonymous
Yes they are. You can’t possibly be that ignorant. It’s not only about dollar comparison of the same work. Work that is “women’s work”- childcare, teaching, domestic work... it’s is seen as less valuable by virtue of who traditionally performed the job. |
Anonymous
Maybe because those jobs, except teaching, typically don't need an education? |
Anonymous
Plenty of jobs traditionally performed by men don’t require an education, yet are more valued. Stagehands are a perfect a direct example of this. The stagehand union is traditionally ( not exclusively) made up of men doing “men’s work”- please understand I know women are in that union. They are part of an international union IATSE. The wardrobe union is part of the same international. They are the same union with different locals, and relatively similar training and education among the ranks. A stagehand handing off a prop will make 50 dollars an hour. A member of wardrobe will make 22 dollars an hour for doing much more actual ( and often highly skilled) work. It’s easy to be flippant and say, “ well, wardrobe should just negotiate for more money”. They are two workforces, both represented by a CBA, but the “women’s work” has decades of undervalue at the table to make up. Every year each local gets a cola of 2%, the dressers fall further and further behind. I’m not super familiar with the women’s soccer complaints, but this thread is already reeking from a disturbing stench of deep ( possible subconscious) misogyny. Our worldview is shaped over a lifetime and our perspective on women and their worth is scarred by a million tiny cuts as we go. Many don’t see how distorted it is. It’s the norm. |
Anonymous
I don't know about the theater, but it sounds like the union is misogynistic. Maybe they can form their own or break free of them and be independent? Sounds like being unionized is doing them no favors and costing them dearly. |
Anonymous
As a rule, all workers benefit from a CBA. You will almost always make more, have better benefits, better healthcare, working conditions, etc etc... I’m not going to argue that there isn’t misogyny amongst stagehands, but they don’t negotiate contracts. Lawyers and managers negotiate contracts. I’m happy to start a new thread on that topic, I don’t want to further derail this one. |
Anonymous
Nobody said anything about ending women’s sports. Your empty response shows you have nothing worthwhile to say. You shouldn’t indulge in conversations you’re not suited to, you just don’t have it. |
Anonymous
Only dumb to you. Everyone knows that women suck at sports. Why do you think they have their own league? |
Anonymous
| What kind of organ you have between your crotch doesn't determine whether or not you have to live up to a contract you signed or not. Too bad. Women rejected a pay scheme like the men, willingly. Therefore they get less upfront pay for more benefits. Big whoop. |
Anonymous
DP. Just want to point out that it's often liberals - especially liberal WOMEN - who denigrate domestic work. Childcare, teaching, domestic work, even SAHMs are put down regularly here by DCUM liberals. According to them, you are the lowest of low if you actually care for your own children. |
Anonymous
And then these immoral women cried wolf by going around telling everyone they were victims of gender discrimination. They don't want equality, they want preferential treatment. |
Anonymous
|
Most of you know nothing about women’s soccer or the situation.
Comparing men and women is dumb. Men are stronger. So? Men’s sports have been around much longer with time to develop an audience. More money is spent on male sports, so of course more people will watch them. There is a whole history of women being stuck in the house and only getting opportunities in baseball, in factories and so on when men were not around. If you have not been to a Spirit game, then say nothing here. They sold out their 5k stadium. They were to play in the bigger stadium soon. They DO have an audience beyond the World Cup. I have been following them for decades and seen it grow. And it was stupid to have a male-female athletic competition. What does that do? Help a man’s tiny ego feel bigger in proving that he has more muscle than a woman. We already know that. Women have nothing to prove to men anyway. This is not about saying women are physically stronger than men. You who say that miss the point. |
Anonymous
This is about money really. If they can generate the interest through tv and attendance and all that, then they should get paid accordingly. Competence is not a factor. The women’s game is abysmal, the winner is whoever makes the least amount of mistakes, but that’s not important for this discussion. There really wasn’t much interest from women in soccer until the last few decades, it wasn’t that they were suppressed somehow. |
Anonymous
Still false. Please regurgitate some more leftist talking points like a penguin full of half digested fish. |
Anonymous
Correct. Never mind that the women's WC teams receive almost three times the percentage of WC revenues generated than the men. Sorry, it's just a fact that women's sports are just not watched by a majority of people. "Last year, the men’s World Cup in Russia generated more than $6 billion in revenue; the participating teams shared about $400 million. That is less than 7 percent of overall revenue. Meanwhile, the 2019 Women’s World Cup made somewhere in the region of $131 million, doling out $30 million, well more than 20 percent of collected revenue, to the participating teams." |