Women Racers have to face the challenge ON THEIR OWN. - Page 6 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > Professional road racing

Professional road racing A place to discuss all things related to current professional road races. Here, you can also touch on the latest news relating to professional road racing. A doping discussion free forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-31-13, 20:07
Mich78BEL Mich78BEL is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 150
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Djave Bikinus View Post
I'm sorry but I'm all for anything that does harm to the patriarchal nature of our society. Equal pay and opportunities in sport would be a start
Equal pay for equal work yes. In that case women tennis players for example should be paid less at the grand slams as they only have to win 2 sets in stead of 3. Women's cycling races are also shorter usually, so again they should be paid less. I can go on...

(Off topic but there's no patriarchal nature of our society, thats bull**** feminist made up)

Last edited by Mich78BEL; 01-31-13 at 20:13.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-31-13, 20:14
Mich78BEL Mich78BEL is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 150
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aapjes View Post
Pay in sports is based on exposure. Most female sports fail to attract as many viewers as the equivalent male sport, so where should the money come from? Should the men give the money they earned to women, who fail to attract an audience? Why is this fair?

A good example is women soccer. Even women don't watch it. So are all those women who refuse to watch indoctrinated by the patriarchy? Or are feminists just blaming everything they don't like in society on this big straw man?

PS. Modern feminism is a pile of crap.
Well spoken!
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-31-13, 20:34
Libertine Seguros's Avatar
Libertine Seguros Libertine Seguros is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Land of Saz
Posts: 13,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mich78BEL View Post
Equal pay for equal work yes. In that case women tennis players for example should be paid less at the grand slams as they only have to win 2 sets in stead of 3. Women's cycling races are also shorter usually, so again they should be paid less. I can go on...

(Off topic but there's no patriarchal nature of our society, thats bull**** feminist made up)
I don't know the reason behind only 3 sets in women's tennis, but a lot of the divides in event length are archaic. Mentioning the shorter races in cycling is not really fair because the UCI has instituted rules insisting on a ten day maximum, 110km average maximum and other things like that, so there isn't the opportunity to race the same as the men even if they wanted to. If a winner of a decathlon gets paid more than a winner of a heptathlon on the basis that they've had to do more events and have therefore earned it more, then that's not reasonable because there is no decathlon for women, so they don't get equal earning potential. There isn't equal opportunity to earn. So there needs to be another way to quantify it.

You praised Aapjes' post suggesting that men's sport should be economically different to women's sport based on the audience it draws. Which seems eminently sensible, since it keeps the bottom line in mind. It does make it hard for a sport without exposure to gain exposure unless it gets given a helping hand, either by an injection of funding for national interest (like British cycling) or from extensive dedication to development from the governing bodies (like the LPGA), but it's reasonable. But it would then stand at odds with your argument above that the amount of work done should be the driving factor behind salarying sports.

Women's tennis events are shorter in length, but they often draw a comparable audience to men's (note comparable, not necessarily equal or better), so should their earning potential reflect that instead of the shorter events? Do you then feel that, say, female biathletes should be paid less than the men as their races are shorter in distance, or equal because they're typically similar in time run? Or equal, potentially even higher in many places, on the economic basis because the women's races draw similar audience numbers?

Judging the payment of sportspeople by demand is sensible, but dooms the niche or smaller sports (and here much of women's sport is included) to outsider, underfunded status which leads to small fields, and external assistance is needed in order to create development (which is what the women have been asking for that starts this debate periodically). Judging it on the amount of distance run, or time spent, or work done, is only fair if there is the opportunity to do the same distance run, or time spent, or work done, as the men. If you judge it on the economic basis, then at least theoretically, women can earn as much as men if their events draw as much in attendance/audience figures and so on - it's just that only a select handful of sports have women's events developed enough that they are able to do this.
__________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrFiUlhAPes

Forever tte de la course.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-31-13, 20:55
Mich78BEL Mich78BEL is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 150
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine Seguros View Post
I don't know the reason behind only 3 sets in women's tennis, but a lot of the divides in event length are archaic. Mentioning the shorter races in cycling is not really fair because the UCI has instituted rules insisting on a ten day maximum, 110km average maximum and other things like that, so there isn't the opportunity to race the same as the men even if they wanted to. If a winner of a decathlon gets paid more than a winner of a heptathlon on the basis that they've had to do more events and have therefore earned it more, then that's not reasonable because there is no decathlon for women, so they don't get equal earning potential. There isn't equal opportunity to earn. So there needs to be another way to quantify it.

You praised Aapjes' post suggesting that men's sport should be economically different to women's sport based on the audience it draws. Which seems eminently sensible, since it keeps the bottom line in mind. It does make it hard for a sport without exposure to gain exposure unless it gets given a helping hand, either by an injection of funding for national interest (like British cycling) or from extensive dedication to development from the governing bodies (like the LPGA), but it's reasonable. But it would then stand at odds with your argument above that the amount of work done should be the driving factor behind salarying sports.

Women's tennis events are shorter in length, but they often draw a comparable audience to men's (note comparable, not necessarily equal or better), so should their earning potential reflect that instead of the shorter events? Do you then feel that, say, female biathletes should be paid less than the men as their races are shorter in distance, or equal because they're typically similar in time run? Or equal, potentially even higher in many places, on the economic basis because the women's races draw similar audience numbers?

Judging the payment of sportspeople by demand is sensible, but dooms the niche or smaller sports (and here much of women's sport is included) to outsider, underfunded status which leads to small fields, and external assistance is needed in order to create development (which is what the women have been asking for that starts this debate periodically). Judging it on the amount of distance run, or time spent, or work done, is only fair if there is the opportunity to do the same distance run, or time spent, or work done, as the men. If you judge it on the economic basis, then at least theoretically, women can earn as much as men if their events draw as much in attendance/audience figures and so on - it's just that only a select handful of sports have women's events developed enough that they are able to do this.

If was mostly continuing with the logic of equal pay for equal work but ultimately it comes down to this: sport doesn't owe anything to anybody, if audiences watch it, the athletes will make money/there will be money to be made. If the audience isn't intrested then there won't be much money regardless of the level of the athletes. Governments already 'sponsor' plenty of sports/athletes (for example olympics athletes).
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-31-13, 21:14
Libertine Seguros's Avatar
Libertine Seguros Libertine Seguros is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Land of Saz
Posts: 13,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mich78BEL View Post
If was mostly continuing with the logic of equal pay for equal work but ultimately it comes down to this: sport doesn't owe anything to anybody, if audiences watch it, the athletes will make money/there will be money to be made. If the audience isn't intrested then there won't be much money regardless of the level of the athletes. Governments already 'sponsor' plenty of sports/athletes (for example olympics athletes).
But then what is "equal work"? Hence why the economic factor (the audience potential etc) is fairer, to my mind. Because it's not a female tennis player's fault she only plays 3 sets, she isn't able to play 5 because of the rules, so her earning potential is blocked from ever being able to match that of the men.

Women's cycling, as things stand, is clearly financially struggling to the point of being borderline uneconomical. The amount of part-time "pro" riders also studying (for example, Christiane Sder gave up the sport when an academic post came up and offered more money than she could earn on the road), and top names giving up the battle to make ends meet in the sport is testament to that. But it's only natural then to feel like your work is under-appreciated.

The UCI are under no obligation to help women's cycling in any sense other than that as the international body responsible for governing the sport, they help with the organisation of the races, so if they're not interested then they shouldn't be surprised if nobody else is. Perhaps, like with some other sports, the women need their own governing body, like the LPGA, a dedicated body that has the intent of growing and improving the exposure the sport has.

"Organic growth" in a sport is a really rare thing. There is almost always some factor behind it. Spain has traditionally been more interested in motorbikes than car racing, but the current boom in F1 viewership is all about Fernando Alonso. Cycling has traditionally been a small minority sport in Britain, but thanks to it being targeted as a sport with great potential for Olympic success in the wake of the poor performances in Atlanta and the huge financial injection as a result of that, it has grown. Most of the time a sport grows because of a reason for a particular audience to pick it up (usually the creation of a new team or a local interest star being successful), or because somebody takes the risk of putting a lot of money into it in order to try to generate the successes that pick up buyrates.

Women's cycling isn't going to grow if just left to its own devices. Hell, neither is men's cycling. But pretty much no sport does that. Football teams are going into administration all over Europe because the money is concentrated into the hands of a few.

Nobody is obliged to take the risk of putting a bunch of funding in to grow women's cycling. But neither are the people in the sport wrong for wanting somebody to do so, and trying to solicit that.
__________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrFiUlhAPes

Forever tte de la course.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-31-13, 22:08
winkybiker winkybiker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver, BC.
Posts: 504
Default

Paying anyone to play a game, or to ride a bike, men or women is just kind-of dumb. Let them all get a job and pay their own way, like the rest of us do. There would still be sport, and there would still be those that rise to the top of it. We might not be able to see as much of it on TV, but isn't the point to participate, not watch?
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-31-13, 22:56
El Pistolero's Avatar
El Pistolero El Pistolero is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 14,170
Default

Injecting money in to a sport doesn't always work. Just look at some South-American economies where they tried to develop some industries by injecting a lot of money. Now those sectors are totally dependent of that money and are just not profitable without it.(there are some success stories as well though, but most end in failure). Take the money away and the sector will collapse with a lot of people losing their jobs.

Honestly, injecting money in female cycling seems like a very poor investment choice.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryo Hazuki View Post
horrible. boonen just the same guy as years before and this course is too hard for him. that's why he rode like a coward there were at least 3 guys stronger than boonen today and none of them won: sagan, ballan, pozzato
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hitch
Goss will woop boonens candy ass in a sprint he cares about, any day of the week
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02-01-13, 00:48
mr. tibbs's Avatar
mr. tibbs mr. tibbs is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aapjes View Post
Pay in sports is based on exposure. Most female sports fail to attract as many viewers as the equivalent male sport, so where should the money come from? Should the men give the money they earned to women, who fail to attract an audience? Why is this fair?

A good example is women soccer. Even women don't watch it. So are all those women who refuse to watch indoctrinated by the patriarchy? Or are feminists just blaming everything they don't like in society on this big straw man?

PS. Modern feminism is a pile of crap.
RE First bold: Exposure is what creates interest is what generates revenue. We can all agree about that. Since women's sports aren't offered as much exposure (read: marketing support), they don't generate interest (read: viewership), so there's not as much revenue. It's a self-sustaining cycle.

Second bold: See above. Plus, you're pretending that the rules and structures that govern our culture are natural, not historical constructions, and that the forces that built and perpetuate them are invisible. Why are you so invested in protecting a system of artificially constructed discrimination?

Third bold: I think you have no idea what you're talking about w/r/t feminism. Feminism as it stands is actually just a form of Marxist deconstruction that seeks to illuminate the cultural structures as they stand today, fostering awareness and--hopefully--a move toward a more equitable society.

To anyone who actually knows what words like "feminism" mean and have meant during their different iterations (waves one, two, and three), as well as what theoretical ideas they are based on and that they interact with and evolve with, you just make yourself sound like an idiot when you write things like that.

PS: Please try not to lose your mind over the word "Marxist." Chances are good you also have no idea what IT means.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-01-13, 00:51
mr. tibbs's Avatar
mr. tibbs mr. tibbs is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Pistolero View Post
Injecting money in to a sport doesn't always work. Just look at some South-American economies where they tried to develop some industries by injecting a lot of money. Now those sectors are totally dependent of that money and are just not profitable without it.(there are some success stories as well though, but most end in failure). Take the money away and the sector will collapse with a lot of people losing their jobs.

Honestly, injecting money in female cycling seems like a very poor investment choice.
I think you've changed too many variables for this to be an accurate comparison. Industry is not sport. NASCAR is a good example of this. As far as I know, they're plan was to invest a whole bunch of start-up capital marketing the hell out of it. This spread the word about it, building "hype," which in turn generated sponsor interest b/c it suggested people are looking. Ditto network television.

EDIT: Have written that, I do think Eggman makes some good points--though I don't agree with everything he's written.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-01-13, 22:44
The Eggman The Eggman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 37
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine Seguros View Post
How do you think Britain got its public interested in cycling? There was a big population of people aware cycling existed but who couldn't give a damn for a long time.
\
Cycling is growing massively in Australia as well, but I doubt that can be attributed to Britain spending money on advertising?

Cycling is very much the in thing at the moment - I've heard it described as "the new golf" about 100 times over the last year or so. It has that great blend of being very social, suitable for all ages and standards, is eco friendly, as well as being excellent for your fitness (which has come to the fore much more over the last 5 years). My guess is much of the surge in Britain is associated with that.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:20.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.