The Direct Descendants Of The Original Humans Dont Appear To Go Bald.

[hairblues]

I wasn't even alive then, so I can't say for certain, but I'm pretty sure she was already a big star, and very well paid before that match.

Not paid what she was deserved, that is the point. And also not getting the respect she deserved as an athlete.
She earned a lot of power and respect winning that match.

For King, that match was more than just beating Riggs. She was a women's activist and believed in equal pay for men and women. King wanted men to respect women more, which is why it was so crucial for her to win. She said, "I thought it would set us back 50 years if I didn't win that match," knowing that all of the hard work would be wiped away otherwise. "It would ruin the women's tour and affect all women's self-esteem."[19] She believed that she was born to work for gender equality in sports.[20]

Billie Jean was part of the Original 9, which formed the Virginia Slims Series, created because the women were sick of the inequality of pay between the men and women victors.[21] These nine women created their own tournaments and played wherever they could. Eventually this turned into the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA).[20]

That helped to improve how the female tennis was viewed and appreciated by both men and women.

 

[hairblues]

You're not an average American woman if you are buying $1,000 coats, and think a man who makes $70,000 a year is broke.

You should take note of this, because this is why Hillary lost the election. Liberals are completely out of touch with reality.

To support a stay at home wife and 2 to 4 children??? In the USA???
No woman is day dreaming to be a stay at home mom in USA to a man who earns $70 grand a year.
And to be honest most men who make $70 grand a year don't want their wife to stay at home and not earn money.
Thats like really struggling in most areas of USA if you want to make a good decent living and have your kids have a good life and education.
Other than really rural areas I don't know what you are talking about.

 

[That Guy]

Women's careers often end up paying less simply because the work women do is less valued. People tend to be more impressed with what men do, in part because men are in a leadership position and want to see younger versions of themselves succeed.

There are plenty of cases where women have less opportunity and less pay, two famous examples, one more impressive than the other, are professional sports and Hollywood. For example Hollywood has now made 318 movies with a budget exceeding 100 million, of those, only one (Kung Fu Panda 2) has been directed by one woman, do you really think that there's only one woman in Hollywood willing to work longer hours?.

I said nothing of "women's careers" because there is no inherently "woman career". We're off on a huge tangent now, but the point I am making is that it will never be equal; women simply occupy more positions that pay less. One day, it might be men, but no one will complain about inequality then.

Up here in Canada, I know plenty of women who work in the energy sector and make just as much, many case much more, than their male peers; however, the majority of the field is dominated by men. There is absolutely nothing standing in women's way preventing them from working in this field even in getting their hands dirty on the rigs; they simply just don't want to do it.

A few years ago, I knew a bunch of women who came from the middle east and served in the army because of conscription. Only ONE of them said she was in active combat because "I didn't want to sit in an office; that's boring". If you are a woman, you have the OPTION of choosing a cushy desk job, taking pictures or teaching English instead of going to die on a battlefield and still most women take the office jobs; men are given no choice. Despite this, I still regularly here complaints about "not enough women in the army" written by people from around the world.

As for Hollywood, there are very few directors in general. Also, for the last 20 years, outside of the MCU literally every action movie hero is a woman and have been in franchises that in some cases have grossed over 1 billion. Milla Jovovich, Angelina Jolie, Charlize Theron, Sigourney Weaver, Zoe Saldana, Scarlett Johansson, Emilia Clarke, Felicity Jones, Daisy Ridley, etc.

Every other action star is some shriveled old guy like Statham, Schartznegger or Stallone who's movies are a far cry from their 80s success and the only male action star whose career is still going strong is Keanu Reeves because of John Wick; which has now spawned Atomic Blonde.

I'm sorry, David - but I still don't see a lack of equal opportunity; just inequality of outcome and that will always be the case one way or the other. I also can't take arguments that use Hollywood as an example of any sort of inequality to heart because it's literally complaining that there is a lack of equal numbers of millionaires dispersed among demographics that are (usually) a minority to begin with in a population where fewer than 1% are within this elite circle at all

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

As for Hollywood, there are very few directors in general. Also, for the last 20 years, outside of the MCU literally every action movie hero is a woman and have been in franchises that in some cases have grossed over 1 billion. Milla Jovovich, Angelina Jolie, Charlize Theron, Sigourney Weaver, Zoe Saldana, Scarlett Johansson, Emilia Clarke, Felicity Jones, Daisy Ridley, etc.

Are you serious?

1) "Outside the MCU every action movie" is not a category.
2) The highest grossing action movies from 2000-2009 were Avatar, The Dark Knight, Pirates: Dead Man's Chest, Spider Man, Transformers 2, Finding Nemo, Star Wars III, Return of the King, Spider Man 2, The Two Towers ...

Unless Megatron is a transvestite -- admittedly a legitimate possibility -- that's a male dominated list. I picked the movies in an objective way, I sorted by gross.

Every other action star is some shriveled old guy like Statham, Schartznegger or Stallone

LOL No, see the above list.

*************

In general, people who are short, ugly, bald, poor, women, Black, dumb, unhealthy, etc face more pressures and challenges in life. A good reason to deny that is if you want to believe that all of your achievements are due to your own greatness and your own good decisions, and you ignore the privileges you've gotten.

 

[SmoothSailing]

@hairblues, @pegasus2 watch Jordan Peterson's lecture on exactly what you are talking about. He's a very intelligent man and his thought process is very interesting.

 

[hairblues]

@hairblues, @pegasus2 watch Jordan Peterson's lecture on exactly what you are talking about. He's a very intelligent man and his thought process is very interesting.

It is and it isn't.
I stand by the what I said I am very happy it is the year 2017 and not 1957.
That was where this discussion stemmed form.

 

[SmoothSailing]

It is and it isn't.
I stand by the what I said I am very happy it is the year 2017 and not 1957.
That was where this discussion stemmed form.

Not refuting that. I'd say most women alive today would dislike to live in 1957, doesn't say anything about whether women are happier today or back then.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the general discussion is on whether women were happier in the 50s, down to being able to be housewife's instead of having/choosing to work?

The fact that women "daydream" about 200k a year men is irrelevant. I daydream about 10/10 women, doesn't mean I wouldn't be happy with a 6.

The important question, in my opinion, is would average women be happier staying at home being housewives or working hard 9 - 5. As you say this is not possible for most in the US these days, but was so in 1957 (or at least we are led to believe this), thus if it were true that women were happier as housewives then that's a plausible theory why women seem to be less happy now than in the past.

 

[That Guy]

Are you serious?

1) "Outside the MCU every action movie" is not a category.
2) The highest grossing action movies from 2000-2009 were Avatar, The Dark Knight, Pirates: Dead Man's Chest, Spider Man, Transformers 2, Finding Nemo, Star Wars III, Return of the King, Spider Man 2, The Two Towers ...

You've intentionally missed the entire point.

You're naming films that either from decades-old franchises that were guaranteed to be massive hits OR from the director of Titanic.

The point is that for all the "women are under-represented in Hollywood" rhetoric, they occupy the lead role of nearly every original IP in the action genre, traditional a "masculine" genre. Two of which, Jennifer Lawrence and Charlize Theron are the highest-paid female actresses in the world and the latter was 10 million upfront for her role in the huntsman. "B-but, X male actor in the same movie as this actress earned 3 million more!" excuse me if I'm not shedding a tear because someone might have made 11 million and the other made 14; it's completely detached from reality scaled down.

A good reason to deny that is if you want to believe that all of your achievements are due to your own greatness and your own good decisions, and you ignore the privileges you've gotten.

Yeah, I've head this "privilege" bullshit before; it's all the rage among self-proclaimed "liberals" these days. Frankly, it's f*****g insulting, David. I grew up in a poor family that clawed their way into better positions over time. My grandparents were forced out of the poorest European country in WW2 into Germany, spent 5 years in refugee camps and into Hitler's army and had absolutely nothing when they came to Canada, but got beat up by their neighbors for being "from Germany".

My parents never had much money when us kids were young either and I've never, not f*****g ONCE in my life, been handed anything for being "white", but I'll be damned if I haven't been accused repeatedly of having some sort of special advantage over everyone not white. Well, I'm still waiting for something great to happen by virtue of being a straight, white male, David.

Individuals who are bigoted finding themselves in positions of power will always be a thing, but this is not evidence for the "institutional" racism and what not people who've drank too much of the Marxist kool-aid rant about. If it were true:

• A black man would not have been able to hold the most powerful office in the world for two terms

• Minorities would not have been made into millionaires by Hollywood; not even once.

• Women like Angela Merkel would not become global leaders

• Minorities and women would not be able to get into the military, police or other positions of authority full-stop

• Above all, it would be mandated that some people get preferential treatment.

You know what is privilege, though? Getting paid just to be native along with "promised education", not having to die on a battlefield if you don't want to just because you have a vagina and complaining because there aren't quite as many millionaires with darker skin tones in Hollywood when fewer than 1% of white people, who are the majority in the countries that produce the most high-budget films, are Hollywood millionaires.

 

[inham123]

Sure they do, I've seen bald Native Americans. I was talking about actual Indians though, from the subcontinent, if this is regarding my comment. I think it's hard to go bald when you consume little sugar, and have a low calorie diet. I know that's heresy on this forum, but there's a lot of evidence that there is a connection between balding and diabetes.

They don't go bald..

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

You've intentionally missed the entire point.

You're naming films that either from decades-old franchises that were guaranteed to be massive hits OR from the director of Titanic.

Here's a hint, when you go through dozens of examples and you have an excuse for every single one, as in a plethora of separate and independent excuses, you have a pattern of excuses. One excuse is ok, but when all you have is excuses (ten years old ! franchise ! marvel ! titanic ! disney ! ), you're not looking at exceptions you're looking at a pattern of excuses, and thus you should re-think things.

The point is that for all the "women are under-represented in Hollywood" rhetoric, they occupy the lead role of nearly every original IP in the action genre, traditional a "masculine" genre.

Now you're manufacturing fantasy arguments.
Here's the reality, almost all movies are male-led
https://pudding.cool/2017/03/film-dialogue/index.html
That's all movies, including non-franchises, movies not directed by James Cameron, etc. It's overwhelmingly male-dominated.

Two of which, Jennifer Lawrence and Charlize Theron are the highest-paid female actresses in the world and the latter was 10 million upfront for her role in the huntsman.

I thought we weren't allowed to quote old IPs or franchises guaranteed to be massive hits? lol.

My parents never had much money when us kids were young either and I've never, not f*****g ONCE in my life, been handed anything for being "white", but I'll be damned if I haven't been accused repeatedly of having some sort of special advantage over everyone not white. Well, I'm still waiting for something great to happen by virtue of being a straight, white male, David.

You've been handed a lot, you're just oblivious to it or in denial of it. You see your disadvantages but not your advantages.

• A black man would not have been able to hold the most powerful office in the world for two terms

Oh my god, out of dozens of recent G7 leaders, one of them was half-black .... racism is over !!!

The half-Black Obama -- and a lot of Black people I've met consider him white -- was a great symbol for the US. You describe him as the most powerful man in the world but he was hardly a Richard Nixon, he implemented the agenda that the financial sector, the state department, etc wanted him to implement while giving nice speeches and looking good doing it. He virtually never deviated from the script or used his power for independent ideas. Yes he was half-Black, but he did not implement a half-Black agenda.

Now Obama can get paid $400,000 per speech. Can you tell why that is? Do you think it's because his speeches educate people? No, it's so that in the future, other presidents and politicians know that there's a financial reward waiting for them if they follow the script. Clinton became a millionaire too. Jimmy Carter did not.

Meanwhile, violence against Blacks went up in the USA. There are countless videos available of police spontaneously beating up Black people. George Zimmerman, who is not even a policeman, can randomly stalk and then shoot a black teen in the USA and then he becomes a celebrity. Whereas a white guy like you can smoke weed and nothing will happen to him, if a Black person is caught smoking weed it can mean decades in jail.

You know what is privilege, though? Getting paid just to be native along with "promised education", not having to die on a battlefield if you don't want to just because you have a vagina and complaining because there aren't quite as many millionaires with darker skin tones in Hollywood when fewer than 1% of white people, who are the majority in the countries that produce the most high-budget films, are Hollywood millionaires.

Being a native is a privilege? Do you expect anyone to believe that it'd be better to be a native than to be white in Canada?

Like you, I have also worked in Canada's natural resource sector. I was in mining engineering for a while, friends went into that or the oilpatch or into consultancy. It's a very racist environment full of racist people. I also know all about natives sometimes getting guaranteed jobs. There were often quotas for native workers, for example if mines were built on native land.

You see that and you think "it's better to be a native." Ummmm, no, if you're born in Canada, it's overall much better to be born white when you integrate over the big picture. On average white people have more money at birth, and better access to social services and broader culture, and are less impacted by racism.

 

[hairblues]

Not refuting that. I'd say most women alive today would dislike to live in 1957, doesn't say anything about whether women are happier today or back then.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the general discussion is on whether women were happier in the 50s, down to being able to be housewife's instead of having/choosing to work?

The fact that women "daydream" about 200k a year men is irrelevant. I daydream about 10/10 women, doesn't mean I wouldn't be happy with a 6.

The important question, in my opinion, is would average women be happier staying at home being housewives or working hard 9 - 5. As you say this is not possible for most in the US these days, but was so in 1957 (or at least we are led to believe this), thus if it were true that women were happier as housewives then that's a plausible theory why women seem to be less happy now than in the past.

It is relevant to the conversation he and I are having I was giving you context.

I do not think average women are happier staying at home as stay at home wives and not having an income of their own.

I think most women who think they will be happier staying at home--stay at home for a few years are anxious to go back to work even waitresses.

Its boring to stay at home and raise kids and clean a house daily with no to little adult interaction.

Is that every single woman? no but its majority.

I think women are happy to stay at home with kids who are infants and toddlers because those years are precious to them..but by the time the kid is in pre school its old. and most intelligent women who are normal (not all but majority) are craving be at work and make their own money.

No grown well adjusted human being is going to want to ask men for an allowance.
Or account where and how they spent there money.
So if a man is wealthy a woman can do what she wants carte blanch to fill her boredom...poor woman? not so much.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Whether the average woman was happier in the 1950s is a moot point. The 1950s are over and we can't go back.

Good f*****g luck to any woman who wants a man who will get a job after high school, buy a house one year later, support as many kids as she can have, and not need to save up for college for the kids because it's cheap.

 

[lemoncloak]

It's not that women tennis players are as good as male tennis players, it's that the sport of tennis has decided to market and develop both men's and women's tennis. They pay women tennis players the same as it's a good business decision.

Come on man that's bull. Women's tennis is actually enjoyable. Compare it to say, women's basketball which makes nothing. When I saw the national australian team in the Olympics I thought to myself "Wow, these women are top professional athletes? They would have been smoked by a decent high school varsity team."

Also, funny how a white man in China or sub-Saharan Africa will face more racism than a brown/black person in Europe or North America.

 

[SmoothSailing]

It is relevant to the conversation he and I are having I was giving you context.

I do not think average women are happier staying at home as stay at home wives and not having an income of their own.

I think most women who think they will be happier staying at home--stay at home for a few years are anxious to go back to work even waitresses.

Its boring to stay at home and raise kids and clean a house daily with no to little adult interaction.

Is that every single woman? no but its majority.

I think women are happy to stay at home with kids who are infants and toddlers because those years are precious to them..but by the time the kid is in pre school its old. and most intelligent women who are normal (not all but majority) are craving be at work and make their own money.

No grown well adjusted human being is going to want to ask men for an allowance.
Or account where and how they spent there money.
So if a man is wealthy a woman can do what she wants carte blanch to fill her boredom...poor woman? not so much.

Yeah I guess you're right actually. I know some girls who are definitely destined to be stay at home.moms, but they are not the majority.
My mother has a masters in engineering, worked until she had us, then was a stay at home mom for nearly 25 years (I have a lot of siblings). She would laugh if someone suggested she had to "ask for an allowance". Or that her life as a mom was not fulfilling. I think this is quite typical in a healthy relationship.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Come on man that's bull. Women's tennis is actually enjoyable. Compare it to say, women's basketball which makes nothing. When I saw the national australian team in the Olympics I thought to myself "Wow, these women are top professional athletes? They would have been smoked by a decent high school varsity team."

Also, funny how a white man in China or sub-Saharan Africa will face more racism than a brown/black person in Europe or North America.

Me: promoting women's tennis is a good business decision.
lemoncloak: That's bull, women's tennis is enjoyable.

Yeah I guess you're right actually. I know some girls who are definitely destined to be stay at home.moms, but they are not the majority.
My mother has a masters in engineering, worked until she had us, then was a stay at home mom for nearly 25 years (I have a lot of siblings). She would laugh if someone suggested she had to "ask for an allowance". Or that her life as a mom was not fulfilling. I think this is quite typical in a healthy relationship.

It might become more common in jurisdictions with absurd day care costs.

 

[hairblues]

Yeah I guess you're right actually. I know some girls who are definitely destined to be stay at home.moms, but they are not the majority.
My mother has a masters in engineering, worked until she had us, then was a stay at home mom for nearly 25 years (I have a lot of siblings). She would laugh if someone suggested she had to "ask for an allowance". Or that her life as a mom was not fulfilling. I think this is quite typical in a healthy relationship.

I am not saying its for or not for every woman I was careful to say that.

Your mom had a lot of kids if I remember correctly think you said 6 kids--that is a full time job--what is she going to do hire day care? In USA at least that is like a full time salary in itself.

Also she had the opportunity to get a degree and to work and made the choice and decision from a position of power--not weakness or desperation.

Its night and day now from 1950s.

I mean I think its also insulting to men to think it would be better back then.

Not a lot of men in 20s and 30s even 40s would relish the idea of supporting a stay at home wife and having only 1 salary. If you are having more than 2 or 3 kids--this is different it gets to a point of practicality...you are constantly in baby/todler mode for at least 5-10 years.

Your Father may have been realy cool about money with your Mom and they may also have had the same value about money.

Some couples value money differently from one another--so its natural for the sole bread winner male or female--to be 'watching' how their mate spends money..if a lot of money this is may not be as big an issue if people are working class or poor....but most married couples fight about 2 things--lack of sex/cheating and lack of money or how they spend it.

If a man or woman both make own money--they can pool portions then each spend the excess how they want with no fighting....if he wants an X box for his man-cave not a problem, if she wants to go get a facial and mani/pedi--no problem.

 

[lemoncloak]

Me: promoting women's tennis is a good business decision.
lemoncloak: That's bull, women's tennis is enjoyable.

Women's tennis being successful has nothing to do with its promotion and everything to do with it's good entertainment quality.
Men earning more than women on average has nothing to do with gender promotion and everything to do with more aggressive work choices due to biological differences.
Notice a pattern?

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Women's tennis being successful has nothing to do with its promotion and everything to do with it's good entertainment quality.
Men earning more than women on average has nothing to do with gender promotion and everything to do with more aggressive work choices due to biological differences.
Notice a pattern?

Yeah -- you're not following the discussion.

 

[SmoothSailing]

I mean I think its also insulting to men to think it would be better back then.

Certainly wasn't better in Ireland. Doubt it was better in most parts of the world, the US might be an exception but I don't really know.

 

[hairblues]

Women's tennis being successful has nothing to do with its promotion and everything to do with it's good entertainment quality.
Men earning more than women on average has nothing to do with gender promotion and everything to do with more aggressive work choices due to biological differences.
Notice a pattern?

Womens tennis started to beamed successful in 1970s...it was almost over night that it started to become noticeable...I personally think it was a combination of the caliber of players (Chris Evert, Martina N) who started to come up, women taking notice was a huge factor all of a sudden you had female tennis players doing advertisement and becoming household names.
I think a combination of things played a factor--women getting more into fitness in 70s/80 before Jane Fonda aerobic craze tennis was huge with women wanting to get in shape (Farrah was a big influence in this trend), Before 70s tennis was viewed as rich people sport--now it was everyones sport.
I think the training techniques to build strength and power and speed were more elevated by this time period and womens game greatly increased with building strength via weight training so players were better conditioned.
Advertisers really made women household names in Tennis--only other women at the time were Olympic women/girls like skaters and gymnists. Probably still like that now...but before that time period you did not have household names of tennis players.

I think Tennis unlike basketball is interesting to more women in numbers--and there for advertisers.

But don't get it twisted lol female tennis players DEMANDED to be paid...no one handed it to them willingly...You should look at my above quote about Billie Jean King and the Virgina Slim Circuit.

Nothing is wrong with this and you are NOW starting to see actresses get a clue and demand their salaries go up...this is in my opinion management (Personal managers not corporate managers) who negotiate contracts fault if women in Hollywood are not getting paid what they deserve.

Anyway that is my long winded speech to say in the end you are at least partially right.
Tennis is good quality entertainment and people watch it more therefore money follows.
but those women demanded what they got financially so keep that in mind.