Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of? *READ POST 1*

PucaMama

PucaMama wrote: »

She is a victim of addiction. Fact.

Was she? How do you know? You don't. You took what I posted and drew your own conclusions as to her state, beyond what was written.

I said she was a borderline Alcoholic, and had bouts of depression. You have no idea whether this was the first incident of this type or whether she had a history of such. Now, that's a fact.

Instead, you sought to find some excuse for her behavior.. and being an addict is a rather good excuse.

silverharp

to extend the logic, everyone that is violent is a victim of something and which maybe true but cherry picking doesn't fly.

PlaneSpeeking

PucaMama wrote: »

Premeditated violence on an individual who is already a victim of addiction. The child was already removed from the danger. He would have been better served to involve mental health services.

Jesus wept.

There's a victim alright - two of them, him and the child.

PlaneSpeeking

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope. Except for sexual violence men are far more likely to be victims of violence across the board. In physical domestic abuse women are more likely to be victims, but the difference is not so great as you seem to believe. In certain kinds of domestic abuse(emotional, non reciprocal) more men are victims. The relationships most at risk of domestic abuse? Lesbian couples.

When the first domestic abuse shelters were set up they took in both men and women. The founder of the shelters saw the need for help for both on the ground. Radical feminists of the 70's couldn't let that slide and before long men were removed, the feminist narrative of "women are always victims and men are always to blame" was in full force and the same founder received death threats and to this day can't visit the shelters she helped found.

But let's say you're right. Let pick a figure out of the air(may as well join in) and say 2/3rds of domestic abuse victims are women. OK. What happens to the 1/3rd? What avenues do they have? What shelters can they go to? As I noted earlier in quite a few countries there are shelters for the pets of victims of domestic abuse. Men's shelters? Well yeah... Men's "shelters" tend to be friend's couches, the park bench, the bottle or prison.

If god forbid a woman reading this was a victim of this crime she would be more believed, she would have somewhere to turn to, she would have people to talk with, she would have avenues to explore and if she had children it's pretty much a guarantee she'd not lose them. If the men reading this were...

The bias is staggering and what's worse is that society is blind to it. And getting blinder. Society protects people in this order, kids, women and coming way behind, men.

As PR noted you wouldn't think so based on even the most cursory glance at modern "feminist" philosophy. Women are portrayed as delicate, with little agency and always the victims in need of protection. It's one reason why I can't abide "feminists", though would reserve my most disgust for "male feminists". I don't mean the average person that labels themselves as such thinking it means equality. I was that soldier. I mean those who have fully swallowed and promote the bullshit that politic has become.

Wibbs, is that Erin Pizzey you mean ?

I read she was barred from several universities for "dangerous opinions" for suggesting that women can be the aggressors to men. Plus your absolutely correct assertion about a lesbian relationship having the highest proportion of domestic violence.

No one ever say women are nor subject to violence, but we are from the innocent fluffy bunnies some feminists would consider us.

Wibbs

maybe

This is the major problem I have with "feminism" and any other gender politic; it paints entire demographics as one thing or the other and looks to point blame. So on the one hand we get "women are not of a hive mind"(obviously) and on the other Women™ are a group of homogenous weaklings in need of constant protection from Men™ victims, with no agency, responsibilities or accountability, seemingly incapable of lying or aggression. If they a woman is deemed to be negative then that of course is something/someone elses fault. She has a mental illness, she's a addict, it's hormonal, her environment, culture, or the patriarchal society. All gender politics do this; hold their own gang up as victims and blameless, while painting the other as oppressors and to blame.

The MGTOW etc do the exact same thing and all are toxic to people. The only difference is the "feminists" get far more traction in media and culture and actual politics. Imagine if these Red Pill types had the same influence to the degree that most of their dafter claims and positions were seen as mainstream and "correct". Jesus.

silverharp

Now you will have to assume all female local politicians might not be there under their own steam

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/gender-quotas-call-for-local-elections-472463.html

The Department of Housing and Local Government is looking at incentives to encourage parties to put forward more female candidates in local elections

iptba

silverharp wrote: »

Now you will have to assume all female local politicians might not be there under their own steam

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/gender-quotas-call-for-local-elections-472463.html

With the quotas for national politics which will go up to a 40% quota in a few years, I think parties would have gradually tried to get more and more female candidates for the council elections.

But they're probably pushing an open door with few people likely to object, even though I imagine a men's officer might not be universally popular:

Under the plans, political parties could receive funding to hire a women’s officer who would promote and support women in the party.



It is understood that the Department is supportive of the initiative, which was put forward by the Oireachtas Women’s Caucus, and are working to bring in measures before the 2019 local elections in a bid to encourage more women to stand.

silverharp

another in the we have more (made up) issues than men so listen to us

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFQm2XLUb4o

Over 50 quid a period? Is that for ****in Ben and Jerry's or something?
I know that comes across as particularly glib but I'd love to know where those numbers are coming from.

silverharp

Deleted User wrote: »

Over 50 quid a period? Is that for ****in Ben and Jerry's or something?
I know that comes across as particularly glib but I'd love to know where those numbers are coming from.

she probably borrowed diane abbott's calculator

iptba

silverharp wrote: »

another in the we have more (made up) issues than men so listen to us

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFQm2XLUb4o

Men need to spend more on food (incl. liquids) due to our greater calorie requirements. And this continues over our lifetime.

Eric Cartman

Deleted User wrote: »

Over 50 quid a period? Is that for ****in Ben and Jerry's or something?
I know that comes across as particularly glib but I'd love to know where those numbers are coming from.

well she is a massive c*nt :pac:

Wibbs

maybe

Eric Cartman wrote: »

well she is a massive c*nt :pac:

A bit below the line of expected half decent discourse dontcha think? Even for a joke.

tritium

laoch na mona wrote: »

Ok putting my legal hat on here, there was no immediate threat, he had successfully removed himself and the child from danger but proceeded to go back and assault his partner.

That's how the police, courts will look at it, now morally she may have deserved a slap but the law isn't know for being based on morality. I n any situation if you return to restart an altercation you became the aggressor, I'll give a common enough example

fight in a pub, the victim/person who comes off worse leaves, comes back later and starts the conflict again, they are now the aggressor

As for the people addressing my comment on statistics, obviously their are examples of male victims and not enough is done in a lot of cases but blaming feminists for this makes no sense, highlighting how women have been oppressed doesn't take anything from men, in fact feminists are some of the only people to speak out against the damage masculine gender roles do to men

And still the fact is women experience more violent abuse

Are other forms of abuse less serious so? Is sustained psychological abuse less important? Because all the research is clear - women may carry out their abuse in a different way than men but they are pretty much as likely to be abusers

laoch na mona

No

tritium wrote: »

Are other forms of abuse less serious so? Is sustained psychological abuse less important? Because all the research is clear - women may carry out their abuse in a different way than men but they are pretty much as likely to be abusers

never claimed that no, abuse is abuse, physical abuse is the most severe form but mental abuse is still abuse and still damages people

py2006

laoch na mona wrote: »

never claimed that no, abuse is abuse, physical abuse is the most severe form but mental abuse is still abuse and still damages people

Psychological abuse can be far more severe and longer lasting than physical. Depending on circumstances and the individual.

laoch na mona

No

py2006 wrote: »

Psychological abuse can be far more severe and longer lasting than physical. Depending on circumstances and the individual.

agreed

py2006

laoch na mona wrote: »

And still the fact is women experience more violent abuse

That MAY be the case but it is hard to know. It is certainly the narritive pushed by feminists. It is FAR easier for women to seek help and there are plenty of help on offer.

Men (for whatever reason) don't come forward for help and even if they do there is nothing like the support and help on offer to women. Plus there is the huge risk of loosing his house and family.

Realistically, the figures are probably similar.

PlaneSpeeking

py2006 wrote: »

Psychological abuse can be far more severe and longer lasting than physical. Depending on circumstances and the individual.

True story. The bruises from having the s**t kicked out of me in school have log since gone - the psychological ones remain, 32 years after I left school.

Zulu

No

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

True story. The bruises from having the s**t kicked out of me in school have log since gone - the psychological ones remain, 32 years after I left school.

Well I'm very sorry, but that doesn't count; you see you have the wrong genitalia between your legs. Now man-up and check your privilege.

tritium

laoch na mona wrote: »

never claimed that no, abuse is abuse, physical abuse is the most severe form but mental abuse is still abuse and still damages people

I’ll tell you from experience within my own extended family when I was younger that physical violence is in its arse the worst. See how been reduced to nothing, demeaned and humiliated affects someone day in day out across years and you wouldn’t dream of underestimating it's effects. I’ve seen people reduced to silent nervous shells, or destroy their lives with drink and destructive behaviour just to escape that. It’s especially difficult for groups who already have worse mental health outcomes, for example young men. Frankly if you make a statement like that you haven’t got a notion what you’re on about

Franz Von Peppercorn

Some poor sap on twitter, an old man from Yorkshire, said that periods should be private. He doesnt have many followers but presumably he tweeted to a fairly famous feminist. Her response was to dog pile on him and now the old ex miner is getting picture of periods, or mentions about periods from 300 oppressed middle class feminists.

silverharp

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Some poor sap on twitter, an old man from Yorkshire, said that periods should be private. He doesnt have many followers but presumably he tweeted to a fairly famous feminist. Her response was to dog pile on him and now the old ex miner is getting picture of periods, or mentions about periods from 300 oppressed middle class feminists.

what is it with feminists and their bodily functions ? especially their attempt to turn it into art , a 4 year old would have more sense

laoch na mona

No

tritium wrote: »

I’ll tell you from experience within my own extended family when I was younger that physical violence is in its arse the worst. See how been reduced to nothing, demeaned and humiliated affects someone day in day out across years and you wouldn’t dream of underestimating it's effects. I’ve seen people reduced to silent nervous shells, or destroy their lives with drink and destructive behaviour just to escape that. It’s especially difficult for groups who already have worse mental health outcomes, for example young men.

I agree with everything you just said, I never once said mental abuse wasn't serve. In domestic abuse their is normally both its rare that an abusive partner isn't physically and mentally abusive.

when I said physical was the most severe I wasn't trying to dismiss mental abuse

GarIT

Zulu wrote: »

Well I'm very sorry, but that doesn't count; you see you have the wrong genitalia between your legs. Now man-up and check your privilege.

I think I have said this before but I will say it again as this has reminded me. I was bullied by a female in Maynooth University it even went as far as one of her male friends attacking me but conveniently the footage on the cameras looking at that area went missing on that day after I tried to get the guards involved. I complained to campus security that I was being bullied and I was told by the head of security "she's 5 foot nothing and under 100 pounds she can't do anything man up" and I was then prevented from meeting with the president of the university when I wanted to make a complaint because it wasn't a serious enough issue for the president to be dealing with apparently. I've tried to get my story out there a few times but nobody really wanted to listen probably because I'm not female.

laoch na mona

No

GarIT wrote: »

I think I have said this before but I will say it again as this has reminded me. I was bullied by a female in Maynooth University it even went as far as one of her male friends attacking me but conveniently the footage on the cameras looking at that area went missing on that day after I tried to get the guards involved. I complained to campus security that I was being bullied and I was told by the head of security "she's 5 foot nothing and under 100 pounds she can't do anything man up" and I was then prevented from meeting with the president of the university when I wanted to make a complaint because it wasn't a serious enough issue for the president to be dealing with apparently. I've tried to get my story out there a few times but nobody really wanted to listen probably because I'm not female.

That's shocking, how long ago was it, and did you try the SU,

I know when I was in NUIG (graduated 2 years ago) ****e like that wouldn't have been ignored by the SU

GarIT

laoch na mona wrote: »

That's shocking, how long ago was it, and did you try the SU,

I know when I was in NUIG (graduated 2 years ago) ****e like that wouldn't have been ignored by the SU

Funnily enough I was involved with the SU but didn't, I don't think I even thought of it. I know my girlfriend was trying to calm me down, I had planned to sit outside the president's door until he would meet with me after I was told it was too trivial for him to deal with by whoever answers his emails but I was convinced not to do that so I think I just dropped kt with everyone against me.

It was 2012.

I'll tell you something that was ignored by the SU, I tried to start a men's/fathers rights society and was told I couldn't there was already an equality society so they wouldn't fund two societies with the same purpose just gendered which is somewhat reasonable, but when I asked the president of FemSoc if she would send out an email about a fathers rights march being arranged in Dublin and they said no, it didn't affect women in a negative way so they didn't care. Then the SU didn't care about their attitude and I was told to go and get elected within FemSoc and sort it from the inside.

PlaneSpeeking

I'm sorry I can't recall the product- it might be Calpol or something similar - and the script says "mothers you know what to do".

Okay, so dads dont look after their kids when sick ???

And Chris Evert's assertion that the women's final should be played on the final Sunday at Wimbledon as its unfair and shows a "bias to men". FFS!

Big up to Roger Federer yesterday for having the balls to say he was chasing a record 9th Wimbledon single title and increasing his own record , not equaling Navratilova's - different competition, different rules, different players.

Why does no one EVER say to these wagons - PLAY FIVE SETS!!!!! Equality me hoop. Doing less work for the same money is not equality.

PlaneSpeeking

GarIT wrote: »

Funnily enough I was involved with the SU but didn't, I don't think I even thought of it. I know my girlfriend was trying to calm me down, I had planned to sit outside the president's door until he would meet with me after I was told it was too trivial for him to deal with by whoever answers his emails but I was convinced not to do that so I think I just dropped kt with everyone against me.

It was 2012.

I'll tell you something that was ignored by the SU, I tried to start a men's/fathers rights society and was told I couldn't there was already an equality society so they wouldn't fund two societies with the same purpose just gendered which is somewhat reasonable, but when I asked the president of FemSoc if she would send out an email about a fathers rights march being arranged in Dublin and they said no, it didn't affect women in a negative way so they didn't care. Then the SU didn't care about their attitude and I was told to go and get elected within FemSoc and sort it from the inside.

Quote from a colleague "men should never get full custody of kids, it deprives the child of a female role model".

When I asked why it was okay to deprive a child of a male role model "it's different, they don't need that".

You might want to tell the victims of the knife/gun gangs in London that.

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'm sorry I can't recall the product- it might be Calpol or something similar - and the script says "mothers you know what to do".

TBH I don't really get the sexism here. The breakdown of stats on men vs women on time spent with children is still heavily in favor of women, and it stands to reason that the mother will have more time dealing with illnesses than men. Perhaps when we see more initiatives to encourage men to spend more time with their children, I can understand but... nah.

Even with my dad, for example, due to his work, he was always the one cooking dinner for us, cleaning around the house, looking after us before/after school. My mother usually worked longer hours. But when we were sick/ill, invariably it was my mother who took care of us, because my dad is rather clueless about the whole area. I've found that many men are. (Not all, but many. I certainly am)

So.. no, I don't see any sexism in such an advertisement. There's plenty of examples of far more obvious and mean/rude advertisements out there.

laoch na mona

No

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

You might want to tell the victims of the knife/gun gangs in London that.

wait so having a da around stops you stabbing people? I think the soccio economic conditions that create crime problems are more complicated then the rise of single mothers

givyjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

TBH I don't really get the sexism here. The breakdown of stats on men vs women on time spent with children is still heavily in favor of women, and it stands to reason that the mother will have more time dealing with illnesses than men. Perhaps when we see more initiatives to encourage men to spend more time with their children, I can understand but... nah.

Even with my dad, for example, due to his work, he was always the one cooking dinner for us, cleaning around the house, looking after us before/after school. My mother usually worked longer hours. But when we were sick/ill, invariably it was my mother who took care of us, because my dad is rather clueless about the whole area. I've found that many men are. (Not all, but many. I certainly am)

So.. no, I don't see any sexism in such an advertisement. There's plenty of examples of far more obvious and mean/rude advertisements out there.

Except that's precisely what sexism is, stereotyping based on gender. All you have to is swap the roles 'fathers know best' and it's hard to argue against it being a sweeping generalised and sexist statement.

silverharp

laoch na mona wrote: »

wait so having a da around stops you stabbing people? I think the soccio economic conditions that create crime problems are more complicated then the rise of single mothers

statistically it matters, #notall

PlaneSpeeking

silverharp wrote: »

statistically it matters, #notall

I'm not saying every single parent household goes into gangs - but surely more than one role model (makes no odds to me whether it's M/M, F/F, whatever) is a good thing ?

But surely (and OT sorry) having children when still a child oneself is rarely to end well ?

givyjoe

givyjoe wrote: »

Except that's precisely what sexism is, stereotyping based on gender. All you have to is swap the roles 'fathers know best' and it's hard to argue against it being a sweeping generalised and sexist statement.

I get that. I do... but I don't see it as being excessive. Now, if we're seeking a society that is completely equal and a removal off all such suggestions, that's fine... but Honestly, I've given up on an equal society. I don't see it happening. Feminists don't want equality. Equality organisations don't want equality since everything is aimed at women's rights. And the State doesn't want equality since, again, all initiatives are aimed at women's rights.

So... I'll 'get my back up' at excessive expressions of sexism, but I'm don't think objecting to everything is terribly useful.

PlaneSpeeking

Deleted User wrote: »

I get that. I do... but I don't see it as being excessive. Now, if we're seeking a society that is completely equal and a removal off all such suggestions, that's fine... but Honestly, I've given up on an equal society. I don't see it happening. Feminists don't want equality. Equality organisations don't want equality since everything is aimed at women's rights. And the State doesn't want equality since, again, all initiatives are aimed at women's rights.

So... I'll 'get my back up' at excessive expressions of sexism, but I'm don't think objecting to everything is terribly useful.

Agreed 100% - sorry to go back to tennis but if women TRULY wanted equality they would be banging down the doors of the All England demanding to play best of 5. They want the same money for less work.

There is a drive to get more women into surgery - by reducing the hours.

Women wanted to join the Commandos in The British Army - but wanted the targets and times reduced.

See a pattern forming here!

silverharp

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Agreed 100% - sorry to go back to tennis but if women TRULY wanted equality they would be banging down the doors of the All England demanding to play best of 5. They want the same money for less work.

There is a drive to get more women into surgery - by reducing the hours.

Women wanted to join the Commandos in The British Army - but wanted the targets and times reduced.

See a pattern forming here!

in the UK you need about 2 female doctors to get the productivity of a male doctor over a life time so it costs as you have to train more

PlaneSpeeking

silverharp wrote: »

in the UK you need about 2 female doctors to get the productivity of a male doctor over a life time so it costs as you have to train more

I work in a medical school. We have women asking all the time for the goalposts to be moved so they can skirt by.

We turned away a man for help wanting to start late one day due to taking his Alzheimer's suffering parent to hospital (my own dad has dementia, so I have a bit of bias I should declare).

Yet every woman with a "child" (i.e. even if they are 17 and built like a brick outhouse!) is accommodated.

There was a storyline last week in Code Black about a racist patient who didn't want a black doctor. Abhorrent attitude of course but there was line that resounded with me:

"How do I know he got there by merit or was allowed to go through with less?".

As I said, racist scum but I would prefer the doctor who operates on me next year (God willing!!) to be fully trained - not allowed to skip meetings and assessments due to childcare. If that makes me prejudiced, I'm sorry.

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

As I said, racist scum but I would prefer the doctor who operates on me next year (God willing!!) to be fully trained - not allowed to skip meetings and assessments due to childcare. If that makes me prejudiced, I'm sorry.

Not really. Different countries have vastly different standards as to what's acceptable practice. I shudder to think of some of the behavior I've seen from Doctors and nurses in China. Oh, it's improving... but less than 8 years ago, there was a common belief (stereotype rather than scientific) among medical practitioners in parts of China that the blood of foreigners and Chinese people was different, and actually had a different color. Getting blood tests was always interesting..:rolleyes:

Now, I'm assuming that for anyone to practice medicine in Europe they would have to be certified in Europe, but how do you effectively test 8 years plus of education/training?

Personally, I don't have any issues with Doctors since I avoid all of them as much as possible... and when I need anything important done, I go private and choose my own doctors/surgeons. Why? Because I don't particularly trust western medicine (my choice, not recommending it to anyone else), and I'm skeptical of state funded services who are always complaining about lack of funding.

yerwanthere123

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'm sorry I can't recall the product- it might be Calpol or something similar - and the script says "mothers you know what to do".

Okay, so dads dont look after their kids when sick ???

And Chris Evert's assertion that the women's final should be played on the final Sunday at Wimbledon as its unfair and shows a "bias to men". FFS!

Big up to Roger Federer yesterday for having the balls to say he was chasing a record 9th Wimbledon single title and increasing his own record , not equaling Navratilova's - different competition, different rules, different players.

Why does no one EVER say to these wagons - PLAY FIVE SETS!!!!! Equality me hoop. Doing less work for the same money is not equality.

The women don't play five sets because there's simply no way it can feasibly fit into the schedule, although it's also true that the women aren't exactly campaigning for best of five either. Also needs to be mentioned that at most of the other mixed events outside of the grand slams the men are paid more than the women, despite the fact that both play best of 3 and the same number of matches.

I support this thread but yours is not a good example to make your point.

PlaneSpeeking

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

The women don't play five sets because there's simply no way it can feasibly fit into the schedule, although it's also true that the women aren't exactly campaigning for best of five either. Also needs to be mentioned that at most of the other mixed events outside of the grand slams the men are paid more than the women, despite the fact that both play best of 3 and the same number of matches.

I support this thread but yours is not a good example to make your point.

Then pay them less money. Oh, and it is.

iptba

I think it’s reasonable that the best players of a sport get.paid the most. And in tennis, that’s the men. We don’t give the same prize money for the U18 or over 35 or over 45 tournament. If there were a sport women were usually better at than men, I’d have no problem with a man’s tournament having a smaller prize fund.

Pawwed Rig

iptba wrote: »

I think it’s reasonable that the best players of a sport get.paid the most. And in tennis, that’s the men. We don’t give the same prize money for the U18 or over 35 or over 45 tournament. If there were a sport women were usually better at than men, I’d have no problem with a man’s tournament having a smaller prize fund.

I wouldn't even agree with that tbh. I would say the person who brings in the most earnings should be paid more. Take for example Ronda Rousey. She was one of the highest earning UFC fighters. A man of a similar weight category would not need to be the worlds best to beat her.

To go back to tennis, the top female players get paid significantly more than a man would of the same standard just because they are a bigger draw. Same is true of most sports I would think.

The female 100m world record was set by Florence Griffith Joiner* and is 10.49 seconds. I would challenge anyone here to name me a man whose fastest time in this. They would not even figure in discussions or get prize money yet Flo Jo made decent cash in her day.

*the cynic in me says that 10.7 secs is more likely the fastest 'unassisted' time.

yerwanthere123

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Then pay them less money. Oh, and it is.

"Oh and it is"
Can't fault that logic then :rolleyes:

PlaneSpeeking

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I wouldn't even agree with that tbh. I would say the person who brings in the most earnings should be paid more. Take for example Ronda Rousey. She was one of the highest earning UFC fighters. A man of a similar weight category would not need to be the worlds best to beat her.

To go back to tennis, the top female players get paid significantly more than a man would of the same standard just because they are a bigger draw. Same is true of most sports I would think.

The female 100m world record was set by Florence Griffith Joiner* and is 10.49 seconds. I would challenge anyone here to name me a man whose fastest time in this. They would not even figure in discussions or get prize money yet Flo Jo made decent cash in her day.

*the cynic in me says that 10.7 secs is more likely the fastest 'unassisted' time.

Usain Bolt, Justin Gatland, (may have that name wrong) -literally dozens of others - I'd say even Allan Wells beat that in 1980!

PlaneSpeeking

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

"Oh and it is"
Can't fault that logic then :rolleyes:

Point is, why do you feel you get to decide what is and isn't a good example of sexism ?

Being paid for for doing less work and being happy to do so - whilst STILL moaning about inequality. Definitely a good example IMO.

Pawwed Rig

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Usain Bolt, Justin Gatland, (may have that name wrong) -literally dozens of others - I'd say even Allan Wells beat that in 1980!

You missed my point

Zulu

No

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

You missed my point

Entirely!

ligerdub

yerwanthere123 wrote:

The women don't play five sets because there's simply no way it can feasibly fit into the schedule, although it's also true that the women aren't exactly campaigning for best of five either. Also needs to be mentioned that at most of the other mixed events outside of the grand slams the men are paid more than the women, despite the fact that both play best of 3 and the same number of matches.

Of course they can fit it into the schedule. There are oodles of courts in Wimbledon, the vast majority of which aren't used after the first few days. You'd only need to keep these open for an extra couple of days to make it fit.

It is true that the men and women play the same amount of games in regular tournaments. The question then is why do they ask the men to play to best of 5 in these 4 tournaments a year where the money is the highest whereas they don't ask women to do the same yet pay them the same amount if they win?

PlaneSpeeking

ligerdub wrote: »

Of course they can fit it into the schedule. There are oodles of courts in Wimbledon, the vast majority of which aren't used after the first few days. You'd only need to keep these open for an extra couple of days to make it fit.

It is true that the men and women play the same amount of games in regular tournaments. The question then is why do they ask the men to play to best of 5 in these 4 tournaments a year where the money is the highest whereas they don't ask women to do the same yet pay them the same amount if they win?

Mumble mumble patriarchy, something.

Seriously though, when the pay was "equalised", the powers that be could - and should - have said that within a specified amount of time, 10 years e.g. all four Grand Slams would be purely equal, same pay - same work.

I guarantee the WTA would have complained bitterly. Check out the FB links of pension helplines etc - the women who were allowed to retire early at 60 and now are working towards 68 like men are brutal in their condemnation.

Yet they have equality with men! You'd think that would be a win/win ???