Any equealist in house?

Post Reply New Topic

Are there any equealist in the forums?

You feel that theres a need for equality and equal rights in all
Regardless of:
Gender
Race
Orientation
Etc.

You KNOW I'm not saying that!

i live in NYC. This stares me in the face on a regular basis.

I'm just stating what would be best, ultimately.

If we can dispense with labels, and think of everybody, regardless of anything, as being deserving of equal dignity, that would be ideal.

"If women went from being unable to vote, to being able to, and even allowed on paper to work in any field, would they suddenly be equal?" (Bradleigh): Yes, they would. If the law says they're equal, then they are.

Actually....I believe there are probably already gay, black, male Kindergarten teachers----and that this demographic will grow as the years progress.

This image is not implausible in the least in 2020. It probably was circa 1980 or so.

Hey folks !

Criminals lose their rights.
Handicapped people have extra rights.
Low IQ people have special rights.
Sex Offenders are put on a list forever (lose their right to privacy).

Equalizing everyone would seem problematic.

Then you don't have a very deep understanding of history of civil rights. Just because it says women are equal, does not mean a panel of men are going to hire a woman for a high job with the same frequency as men. Does not mean women would be thought to be as able to be a doctor, a scientist, or CEO just because the law say she is equal. Does not mean her husband won't expect her to become a housekeeper, does not mean her parents would think she has as much potential as her brother, does not mean her boss won't expect her to start work and then leave to pop some kids out.

Things are better than they were when there were on the books laws that said no to discrimination, but women sanitary products are still taxed like they are luxury goods. People are still sexist, and someone can have a harder time based on just their gender.

I go along with Bradleigh and Borromeo on this one. I agree with the sentiment, but believe it is often disingenuous and is used to deny true equality.


On this, I think there is an important distinction to be made.

There are basically two forms of soccer - club soccer and international soccer. The vast majority of money in men’s soccer comes from club soccer, which is the main employer of top players. Top men’s club soccer matches are broadcast around the world, with TV networks paying large amounts of money for the rights to the matches and sponsors paying large amounts to have their logos displayed prominently on club shirts or billboards. Top clubs will play 50-60 competitive matches a year. While international soccer matches can attract even larger television audiences, they are held much less often, and the really big matches are only held every two years. The revenue is also distributed very differently, and match day revenue is a tiny fraction of what most associations make.

Top players only make a tiny amount of their total money from international football. For example, Paul Pogba received £343,000 from the French FA for winning the 2018 World Cup, but receives £290,000 EVERY WEEK from playing for Manchester United just as his basic wage - there will also be substantial bonuses for playing matches and so forth. He is also paid £3.4m a year by Adidas and will have other sponsorship and image rights deals. To him, £343,000 is a drop in the ocean which is also far less than the revenue his World Cup win will have generated for France.

For women it is a different story. If they are an international player then international match fees will be a big part of their salary. And it is at international level that women’s teams are asking to be paid equally. While there is very little connection between pay and revenue at this level - football associations are non-profit organisations that have huge cash reserves - it should be noted that at least the American FA (US Soccer) makes slightly more ticket money from the women’s team than the men’s team, although the difference (about $1m a year) is again pretty negligible for such a large organisation. Also, TV rights and sponsorship are packaged at international level (I.e. you can’t pay for women without paying for men) so it stands to reason that compensation should be too.

So my view is that the overall disparity between men and women soccer players is fair. However, at international level, major associations should be paying their women players at least as much per match as an equivalent male player is paid for their international performances. To my knowledge, that’s basically what actual soccer players have asked for.

Sorry for going all British on the topic!

Being a woman in STEM, I wholeherteadly agree.
We should encourage diversity but forcing it by agressive pairity policies defeats its purpose. Giving a girl additional points in Math for being a girl prolongs a stereotype that girls are worse in Math.
And then what? She gets a job winning over a more competent male because of her additional points? It prolongs a stereotype of incompetency even further!
Nope, I want just equal policy. Fighting stereotypes should happen on cultural and infrastructural levels, not on favoring laws.

However, I think there are benefits to being a savvy employer who realised that a certain job candidate has been undervalued by the market and taking an occasional punt on applicants who don’t meet the usual metrics.

I believe that everyone is created equal. Where they go from there is up to them.

You seriously don't see how a science scholarship for a black person, specifically for one from a poor background, is different to a scholarship that said it was for a white person only?

Equal under the law maybe. Some people are born with advantages. Wealth, talent, luck, etc.