US women’s soccer team’s equal pay Dismissed

originally posted by: Falenor
As I understand it they have a union and negotiated a contract, what are they complaining about ? They signed off on it did they not ? Also.....they got beat in a scrimmage against 15 year old boys...just saying

Scrimmage Link

Well that’s not entirely true, it said “under 15” boys team, not that it’s important' just wanted to point out the size of those under 15s boys team, they were big kids, athletic and looking fully developed
Still, your link and point is pretty relevant and succinct
World champion women defeated by under 15 year old boys from a state team

It is my understanding, the case was dismissed due to the women negotiating and refusing a pay deal comparable to the mens division...they made their negotiations, presented them and the negotiation was settled....but NOW the girls want to claim "unfair" or "unequal" pay...gather the entire story before you pick a side, just saying........a reply to: Bluntone22

a reply to: rockhndr

They negotiated a deal that gives them a percentage of revenue.
Now they want a percentage of the men’s revenue.

Women don’t generate anywhere near the money the men generate so they filed a lawsuit and lost..

The entire story is that women only cry foul when it benefits them but never when they have the advantage.

a reply to: Bluntone22

That's true of most though.

Cry foul when it benefits you, but keep silent the rest of the time. In today's society, it's not about truly being fair. It's more about getting every advantage you can on the backs of others. That's what victim group mentality does to you. You feel justified because you're the victim right, and when you step on someone else, well, they deserved it.

a reply to: Bluntone22
Agree that it is a funny thought with the revenue. Outlandish.

But your broad statement about women is just as true as it is for men. It has less to do with the gender, we all are egoist to some point. I have not seen a lot of men cry foul durin the centuries when it came to women rights. One could say, you men had the advantage and and benefits, still did not cry foul.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

It depends.

I have less trouble with the idea of men seeing women as different and not accepting some things about them than I do with a white man looking at a black one and saying, "You are clearly not human," the way it was.

Sure there were plenty of things that should have been evident, but at the same time, women are clearly different in various ways too. It is easier to make a case that we aren't the same. That there are very real and manifest differences that exist. Even today when women claim discrimination in certain arenas like very physical jobs, it's less discrimination and more then uncomfortable truth that we women just don't have an easy time building our physical power to meet certain very high bars that some jobs need, and are those bars discriminatory or necessary?

Is it wrong for the physical standards to be what they are for something like firefighting? Would you want those standards to be lowered if your life depended on them? I have no issue with a female firefighter, but she better be able to reach those physical standards. They are there for a reason, and not to discriminate.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

It wasn’t a broad statement, it was a statement about broads.....lol

As for men’s advantages, Yeah, it’s human nature to maintain their status, but again its subjective.
Men got to work to support a family.
Women Got to stay home and raise the family.
Men die in wars, women don’t.

Ask a women raised in the 50s.
Most women wanted a man to take care of them.
Was that entirely based on culture or was it human nature? I don’t know.
The culture has obviously changed and it’s debatable if it’s for the better.

Women have all the right in the world to strive for their own version of equality and I’m just pointing out that they only push for the parts of equality that will benefit them in one way or the other.
I have yet to see anyone pushing to be included in the negative aspects of being equal.
Let me know when the feminists insist on being included in the draft process or when they demand family courts not favor women over men. I won’t hold my breath.

a reply to: Bluntone22
Now we talk.

You know there is a lot of peer pressure on us too, from our own. If you stay at home, because you can and look after the child and house, you are just a simple housewife.

If you work, you abandon your childs or you hate children in general. Not all but a great part thinks like that here. It is obvious what roles men and women got from nature.

I am all for equality but not forced equality. In general I agree.

Would you have a problem staying at home with the kids, if your wife made more than you and it is enough so one of the parents can stay at home?

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

My wife is in financing and has made more money than me for much of our marriage.
Never had a problem feeling inferior and am very proud of her.

She stayed at home for two years after our daughter was born. Her choice and she loved the time with our daughter. I would have loved the time as well but would never have taken that away from my wife.

Women do have a catch 22.
Dammed if you do sort of thing.

If women make 75 cents on the dollar then why are there any employed men to be found? A 25% cut in labor costs would be a no brainer for every business.

So maybe something isn’t being added up correctly?

a reply to: Bluntone22
Yeah, damned if you do, damned if not. Can not make it anybody right so I do what I deem right.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

Sure there were plenty of things that should have been evident, but at the same time, women are clearly different in various ways too. It is easier to make a case that we aren't the same. That there are very real and manifest differences that exist. Even today when women claim discrimination in certain arenas like very physical jobs, it's less discrimination and more then uncomfortable truth that we women just don't have an easy time building our physical power to meet certain very high bars that some jobs need, and are those bars discriminatory or necessary?

Necessary!

originally posted by: ketsuko
Is it wrong for the physical standards to be what they are for something like firefighting? Would you want those standards to be lowered if your life depended on them? I have no issue with a female firefighter, but she better be able to reach those physical standards. They are there for a reason, and not to discriminate.

No it is right because it follows sane thinking. I just can not drag a 180 pound men out of a burning building with mask like most men can do. My mate would be doomed. I would be more in the way than do anything good.

But then, firemen get picked too, the bars that you wrote about. I say if women can reach those, we should not be excluded. In turn, no employee should be forced to employ me, because then, I am just a quote filler.