The Year of the Woman: The London Olympics Strike Early for Gender Equality

One hundred and sixteen years after the modern Olympic movement began, London heralds the 'Year of the Woman'

  • Share
  • Read Later
Rebecca Blackwell / AP

Malaysian markswoman Nur Suryani Mohd Taibi shoots during a training session for the 10-m air-rifle event at the Royal Artillery Barracks in London on July 26, 2012, ahead of the 2012 Summer Olympics

It was the first gold medal of the London Olympics, and Nur Suryani Mohd Taibi was off by a long shot. On Saturday, the Malaysian markswoman placed 34th out of a field of 56 in the 10-m air-rifle qualification round. (The event was eventually won by China’s Yi Siling, giving the People’s Republic one of its four gold medals of the day to ensure that the country led the medal table after day one.) But for Suryani, just showing up was remarkable enough. Due to deliver a baby girl in early September, the 29-year-old is believed to be the most heavily pregnant athlete in the history of the Olympics.

And talk about a troubled birth: 116 years after the modern Olympic movement began, the London Games finally herald the “Year of the Woman.” For the first time in Olympic history, every one of the 204 delegations participating in London includes female athletes. “This is a major boost for gender equality,” said International Olympic Committee (IOC) president Jacques Rogge, in about as emotive a sentence as the low-key Belgian managed during Friday’s opening ceremony.

Moments before, during the parade of nations (and territories, principalities and other not-quite-national entities), Saudi Arabia had introduced to the world its first ever female athletes, a judoka and an 800-m runner. Qatar made one of its three inaugural female athletes its flag bearer. (On Saturday, that flag bearer, Bahya al-Hamad, placed 17th in the same 10-m air-rifle competition as Suryani.) Brunei also made its first female participant, 400-m hurdler Maziah Mahusin, its flag bearer. And perhaps it’s fitting that the host nation’s best chance for a gold in the athletic events, which will take place in the same stadium, is yet another woman: Great Britain heptathlete Jessica Ennis.

(VIDEO: TIME Interviews Jessica Ennis)

London marks another gender milestone. The Games are the first in which every sport includes female athletes. The final holdout, boxing, will begin women’s competition on Aug. 5 (watch for Great Britain’s neighbor, Ireland, to impress, thanks to Katie Taylor). Freestyle wrestling added female grapplers in 2004, while weight lifting was granted gender equality in 2000. (Although each sport is now offered for both genders, there are still more men’s events, like those brought on by a greater variety of weight classes.)

As a result of all the girl power, the makeup of some Olympic delegations has tilted toward the X chromosome. The American squad in London has, for the first time, more women than men. Women make up the majority among the Russian and Chinese squads too. Both of those countries have traditionally encouraged female participation because it’s easier to rack up medals through women’s sports than via the male ones that are better funded in the West.

(PHOTOS: Highlights from the 2012 Olympic Opening Ceremony)

Suryani, who is ranked 47th in the world, took to the sport after her father, a shooting-range manager, despaired of controlling his rambunctious daughter. The 10-m air rifle is actually not her preferred event. At the Commonwealth Games in India, in 2010, Suryani struck gold in the 50-m three-position air rifle, but she had to forgo that competition in London because her growing belly makes one of the positions — lying on her stomach — impossible. A Muslim, she competed at London’s Royal Artillery Barracks with her hair tucked under an improvised headscarf-visor combination.

(MORE: Running on Faith: How Politics, Rather than Fasting, Has Often Proved Tougher for Muslim Olympians)

A sartorial challenge faces Saudi Arabia’s judoka Wojdan Ali Seraj Abdulrahim Shahrkhani, who had expected to also wear a headscarf during her bouts. The International Judo Federation now says safety concerns dictate a headwear prohibition in competition — even though the sport’s Asian organizing body has allowed religious veils. (Another Olympic martial art, taekwondo, permits hijabs in international competition, but the sport uses head guards that can be worn over any headscarves.)

There are still a few days in which the Saudis, Olympic bureaucrats and judo officials can try to reach some sort of settlement on Shahrkhani’s case. The IOC has every incentive to ensure her participation. After all, back in 1996, not so long ago, 26 participating Olympic squads failed to field a single female athlete. The world’s come a long way since Atlanta. Sending Shahrkhani back home would mean one less woman for what’s fast becoming London’s iconic Year of the Woman.

MORE: 50 Olympic Athletes to Watch

63 comments
DelicateTater
DelicateTater

 If she was really better why does she need state mandated affirmative action?

DelicateTater
DelicateTater

 I would consider women strong if they actually were able to gain success without quotas, child-support, alimony, and other state-run programs and stop complaining that the world doesn't revolve around them.

DelicateTater
DelicateTater

 Maybe women should stop expecting engineering level wages with their women studies degree and then the wage gap will be even.

Or maybe women should start entering the mining sector, work on oil rigs, work in trades, but I guess that would require you actual work. Easier to blame someone else for your own problems.

Anthony Zarat
Anthony Zarat

"The Games are the first in which every sport includes both female and male athletes."

This is simply a lie.  There are three woman-only sports at the olympics, such as synchronised swimming, where men are not permitted to participate.  This is the first olympics in which every sport has a FEMALE athlete.  Not every sport has a MALE athlete.

Modulus1578
Modulus1578

Let's have some REAL equality and let the women compete against the men! lol

techjanis
techjanis

Gender equality?

Why is it then that most chemical companies in Houston, especially the foreign owned ones, REFUSE to hire women as plant operators.  Some flat out say women will not be hired for these jobs even if a woman takes classes at the local college.

And the EEOC or Houston Chronicle refuses to investigate.  How do we get help?

Sascatchulokino
Sascatchulokino

Here's what I think about gender equality...GO MAKE ME A SANDWICH!!!

riverrat001
riverrat001

gender equality? ...here's gender equality.....where I work, I go up against a femal for a job promotion, she gets 2 points right off the bat for having a double x chromosone.....yea....real equality.......

Jay
Jay

I see people getting side tracked with the story.  All I care about is seeing a job well done.  

boise_sv66
boise_sv66

The major problem with our society is that we perceive Equality as a mathematical certainty, but with emotional living creatures it should be a psychological concept.

For example, are children equal to their parents?

Are poor people equal to rich people?

Are men equal to women?

Technically the answer to the above questions is a NO.

But morally, ethically, and even for the success of the human beings as a whole, the psychological concept of Equality is a resounding YES. Any species that allows the weaker (men, children, women, poor etc) to suffer in an unmitigated fashion will lose the evolutionary struggle of perpetuating their own species. 

People who lament here about the inequalities should remember that at some point of time western democracies was born to spread the concept of equality. There was a time when our forefathers were tired of horrible mistreatment of the weaker groups. May be we can all find some common ground in that and treat each other respectfully and yes, as equals?

eroteme1
eroteme1

The London Olympics strikes early for gender equality.  More will surely follow.  Perhaps as a minority of one I would like to suggest so far as the fairer sex is concerned there is hardly anything less attractive than a female athlete.  A close second might be a female trumpet player.  I would like to see female competitions in the Olympics limited to sewing and knitting contests, maybe cooking stews as well.  Cheering female weight lifters, etc., just is not my cup of tea.

a_real_climate_scientist
a_real_climate_scientist

 Who cares what you think? Go clean the house.

eroteme1
eroteme1

I neglected to add in my comment that I was trying desperately to be a bit humorous.  I obviously failed, I will either try harder next time, or I will instead give up trying to be humorous.

a_real_climate_scientist
a_real_climate_scientist

 OK, now I appreciate you were trying sarcasm, but it fell a bit short, considering all the genuinely sexist comments made here.

Snyphilis
Snyphilis

Nauru has only two athletes in the games.  They are both men.  Guess you will have to wait.

OR

Destroy Nauru!!!!!

William L. Turner
William L. Turner like.author.displayName 1 Like

Women are in a privileged position these days. There are far more employed women in American than men. Women are the majority of athletes among western nations. There is a point where men will get fed up and regress, just as they have in the middle east. Men are not stupid. If I were a Saudi man, and watched the progression of "women's rights" in American and european nations, I too would support regressive policies barring women from every aspect of society. You give them and inch, they take a mile.

William L. Turner
William L. Turner

I don't mind strong women. Let us agree that women no longer need affirmative action programs. I am sick of seeing women only scholarhsips when women make up the vast majority of the student popultation. I also am sick of feminist barking over lack of women in enginerring when there is crickets when men are underrepresented in many other fields, such as finance, human resources, education and public sector cleric positions.

boise_sv66
boise_sv66

OK, now you are speaking more rationally. Seeking regressive policies made you sound, hmm...., bad.

WilliamL.Turner
WilliamL.Turner

@boise_sv66 Clearly they need some emoticon for sarcasm lol

HoneyBoom
HoneyBoom

A real man does not fear a strong woman. Man up punk!!!

Lastrova
Lastrova

It's not strong women that incites men--at least not this one--but the endless gender propaganda that fills the media day in day out.  Most women are pretty blind to that.  That's self-interest for you. So get your act together, kid.

boise_sv66
boise_sv66

When you speak to someone else, your use of "kid" and "hon" indicate condescension. So you do come across as a misogynist. You may be proud of that, but many of us are pained by folks like you!

boise_sv66
boise_sv66

Ah, Will, you dont get to decide who you give an "inch" to. Freedom and Equality are birth rights and everyone is entitled to it. Your attitude sucks. You can certainly talk about situations where inequality exists in favor of the females. But what you suggest as remedy is worse that the situation of the inequality itself.

William L. Turner
William L. Turner

 nl

 No wonder people flew planes into your buldings. Too bad terrorists don't pick better targerts. Perhapts the AGM for "Lesibian Man-Hating Feminists"?

DelicateTater
DelicateTater

 Who needs terrorists when feminism will bring down Western society without any outside forces.

boise_sv66
boise_sv66

Who needs terrorists, when we have William L.Turner.

Lastrova
Lastrova

Poor male victims?  Try war.  That just about wipes out every other generation of men in one country or another.  And they don't die comfortably or quietly either.    

DelicateTater
DelicateTater

@boise_sv66:disqus

Love how you ignored all the men who are also systematically raped.

Just goes to show that feminists only care about the female victims while ignoring the much larger male victims of both violence and rape.

boise_sv66
boise_sv66

War does not just affect men. WHy dont you ask the women of congo who are systematically raped by the male soldiers to destroy the entire society of their enemies?

visionary_23
visionary_23

That "inequality" that exists in favor of the females is government sanctioned and cheered by society at large, despite the fact that men die of virtually every disease and cause more than women and receive less US federal funding for their woes.  Or are considerably less educated than their female counterparts, yet still receive fewer educational scholarships.  Or are more likely to be a victim of violence, yet women have a violence against women act.  Or are more likely to be falsely incarcerated, yet get larger sentences for the same crime.  On and on.

I'm waiting for Time magazine to write a story about "gender equality" highlighting that.  Something tells me, with boise_svc as a reader, it'll never happen, and she'll be the first cheering.

WilliamL.Turner
WilliamL.Turner

@boise_sv66 A stick as thick as your thumb? With the way women are these days, they should update the law and make it a lead pipe as wide as your wrist :)

boise_sv66
boise_sv66

Ken, here are somethings I have read about the common law:

http://www.pacwcbt.pitt.edu/Cu...

http://www.historyofwomen.org/...

If you think that women have not been second class citizens for a long time in history, it is really illogical that  the word "feminism" was even coined. It @JasonKL:disqus s my wish that we can do away with discriminating words like "feminism". I'd rather call myself a humanist than a feminist. But it saddens me to see so many on this forum who choose to say hurtful things about women, or dismiss their long time suffering as nothing. If you think that there was no reason for women demanding equality, then you live on different planet than I do.

Ken Deemer
Ken Deemer

boise_sv66

Equality is always a balancing act. Many hundreds of years, these laws were against women. It was OK to hit your wife as long as it was a stick no thicker than your thumb - look it up

Could you please give a source for this?  The fact is there NEVER was a law that allowed men to hit their wife.  The Rule of Thumb was for COMMERCE!  

Christina Hoff Sommers explains the whole confused business in her 1994 book Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women. For more than 300 years "rule of thumb" has meant what most people think it means: any rough-and-ready method of estimating. It's believed to have originated with woodworkers, who made measurements with their thumbs. For more than 20 years, however, some feminists have maintained that rule of thumb has the darker meaning alluded to above. They say that the principle of regulated wife beating was elucidated in the famous legal commentaries of William Blackstone (1723-'80), the basis of much U.S. common law, and that it prevailed in state courts well into the 19th century. However, in Blackstone, as Sommers notes, there's no mention of the rule of thumbWife beating has never been legal in the U.S. The Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited it in 1655, religious groups campaigned against it, and vigilantes occasionally horsewhipped men accused of it. Most states had explicitly outlawed it by 1870. Notice...then as now, men were servery punished for being ACCUSED of it.  Then as now, men did not to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, just being accused of Domestic Violence is enough for men to lose all their rights without due process of law.

Ken Deemer
Ken Deemer

"boise_sv66

BTW, can you cite some studies that show that men are MORE LIKELY to be victims of violence perpetrated by women?

Yes we can.  Almost every unbiased source will show it.  

Martin S. Fiebert - Department of Psychology - CSU

Assaults by Women on their

Spouses / Male Partners: An Annotated

Bibliography http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert...

A study conducted by scientists at the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The lead

investigator was Daniel Whitaker, Ph.D., a behavioral scientist and

team leader at the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (which

is part of the CDC).

Results were published in the May Journal of Public Health.

Whitaker

discovered, of the 24 percent of relationships that had been violent,

half had been reciprocal and half had not. Although more men than

women (53 percent versus 49 percent) had experienced nonreciprocal

violent relationships, more women than men (52 percent versus 47

percent) had taken part in ones involving reciprocal

violence.

Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25

percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71

percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were

women. This finding surprised Whitaker and his colleagues,

they admitted in their study report.

As

for physical injury due to intimate partner violence, it was more

likely to occur when the violence was reciprocal than nonreciprocal.

And while injury was more likely when violence was perpetrated by

men, in relationships with reciprocal violence it was the men

who were injured more often (25 percent of the time) than were women

(20 percent of the time). "This is important as violence

perpetrated by women is often seen as not serious," Whitaker and his

group stressed.

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org... Many of the “facts” that say 95% of all victims are women are

taken from women shelter surveys. Would

not this be like asking the American Pork Association what the best meat

is? Some other "facts" we keep hearing that are just plain lies:The Surgeon General’s Workshop on Violence and

Public Health reports that

domestic violence is the number one cause of injury to women in the United

States —more than rapes, muggings and auto accidents combined.

One often-cited study is a Journal of the

American Medical Association study in a large urban hospital (Detroit). But a more recent JAMA-cited study found a

virtually equal prevalence of domestic violence for male and female ED

patients.

Only 1.85% of women's emergency room visits are

due to domestic violence (37% of 5% - all forms of violence

account for only 5% of ER visits.)and:According to the FBI, a woman is beaten in this country every 15

seconds.

There is absolutely no basis in fact for this

statement. While it has become an often-used factoid (sometimes the number is 9

seconds, or six) it is not accurate. It is also variously reported as coming

from the FBI, Department of Justice data, the UN, the Commonwealth Fund, or simply, "studies." The

organizations referenced have never compiled data in this fashion or issued such

a statement.

The original factoid (then 17 seconds) was extrapolated

from information in this report by Murray Straus, which was compiled nearly

twenty years ago and cannot have any relevance in a discussion of today's

incidence of domestic violence.

If you choose to do your own extrapolation of this

data, you will discover an incidence of 13 seconds also applies to males, a

point which is conveniently left out of the factoid circulating today. Again,

this study is so old, and society itself has changed so much it cannot be

considered relevant in 2004.

Furthermore, the FBI does not calculate, tabulate, or

track data on domestic violence.Any source that has something to gain should be suspected.  Remember, all the sources that show women are the only victims want and get money from the VAWA funds.

boise_sv66
boise_sv66

Vision.., you cited VAWA as something that should be extended to men. So I can give you studies that prove that majority of the women who suffer violence, suffer it at the hands of people they know. Hence the special law. Then you start talking about men as victims in the larger picture of usual violence then the VAWA argument becomes moot. Since it happens at a ratio of 8:1 (men:women victims), there are is no special attention to it. And if we dont learn from history, it will repeat itself again. So yes, there are laws to protect those who suffer now and special attention is given to some situations to make sure that past mistakes are not repeated,

 In fact I find it very hard to follow your thinking. I have to conclude that you are a master at intentionally misrepresenting and twisting facts and others comments to suit your bias. We all do it, but some of us try to stop ourselves when we realize it.

I am done with this article as I think I have provided the best input that I can on this topic. 

JasonKL
JasonKL

Visonary - and you think they just get this money because the government says "oh, you women are so gosh-darn cute with your foundation. Have a check". No, they get it because they get substantive research going and apply for the grants. No one is stopping men from doing that, except ourselves. How many breast cancer fundraising walks and such go on every year? These are privately organized. How many prostate cancer walks? I can't think of one. Some guy would have to step up and put that together. If none have, that's our fault - not the ladies.  

Obviously, I don't hate men (I am a man), but I'll give females credit. Problems like domestic violence, they respond to them by raising public awareness, getting laws put into place, and starting privately-run shelters. Problems like breast cancer, they collect pledges and do walk-a-thons in the millions to raise money. A lot of the "advantages" women seem to have is because they've worked for them - and I'll take my hat off to that. 

They've stepped up. If we want to see more cash for men's health, we've got to fundraise and apply for grants to make that happen. If we want resources and legal protection for battered males, we've got to raise awareness and organize shelters. That's how they got there, it didn't just happen. 

visionary_23
visionary_23

Boise, the US government statistics put men at being a victim of violence at an 8:1 margin vs. women.  So no, for every study I find for poor male victims, you can find only 1/8 for women.  I don't think the government should be protecting groups that suffered in the past -- I think it should be protecting groups that are suffering NOW. 

The way your argument is construed, no group will ever be viewed as a victim if it wasn't historically, and all groups that were viewed as victims will continue to be, even if they're doing better off than almost every other group out there (like women).  That's a regressive and nonsensical policy.

visionary_23
visionary_23

By the way Jason, the mere fact that I exist and that there are others not simply parroting feminist nonsense as though it were always truth is part of the "organizing" and "spreading awareness" that you laud the women for doing (though ironically you forget how much help men gave them along the way).

visionary_23
visionary_23

Uh yea, Jason, I also know that the proportion of federal funding for breast cancer has gone from 2:1 to 2.5:1 to now 2.8:1 relative to prostate cancer -- both cancers of which kill equal amounts of relative people.  I also know that for every utterance on pubmed of men's health, you've got 37 utterances of women's health.  I also know that the federal government has 2 agencies and 5 bureaus for women's health despite the fact that men die of virtually every known cause more known to humanity.

Regardless of telling a group getting screwed on virtually every level to simply "step up" (something tells me you wouldn't be saying this to any other group but men if you saw those same statistics), the FEDERAL government -- the same government that I'd surmise even you would argue should be gender and race neutral -- is absurdly biased.  Am I allowed to any degree of discomfort with that Jason? Or is it totally kosher given that it's the average man that's dying and not the average woman?

Give me a break.

boise_sv66
boise_sv66

Visionary, you are not addressing the most important point of the discussion. For every study you cite about poor male victims, I can cite studies about poor female victims. You wrote:

You're conflating the men who create violence with the ones who suffer violence, which is nonsensical at best, and immoral at worst.That is a dishonest assessment of what I wrote. You are upset about the way the society is now, but that doesnt give you the right to read into the lines I wrote. I never said that funds against violence should not be provided for any group. But the government chooses to help certain who have historically struggled. 

Coming back to the most important point: do you suggest regressive policies to correct any inequality you perceive - because that is what I am against.

JasonKL
JasonKL

You do know where breast cancer research funding comes from right? Largely from fundraisers organized by or grants applied for by the Susan G. Komen foundation - a private group organized by a woman who lost a family member to breast cancer. If you want to see more funding and research for prostate cancer or some other men's illness...you're welcome to start the Visionary_23 foundation and do that. Instead of whining about how women's diseases get more funding - step up and actually organize something the way the ladies have (they're way ahead of us in this regard). 

The same is true of most of this stuff, TBH. Want more shelters for battered men? Organize one. Most shelters for battered women are privately run...by women who used to be battered. Want more legal protections for battered men? Raise awareness of the problem, start by educating people, and gain support (the way women did to gain legal protections for themselves). 

Don't sit around crying just because the women are going out and making things happen for themselves. If you have something you want to see happen for males, no one's stopping you from taking that first step.  

visionary_23
visionary_23

Also, Boise, the mere fact that we celebrate male demise in the mainstream media while the average male has a host of horrific statistics not in his favor isn't the "pendulum" swinging a bit too much the other way -- it's a massive shift, and many women disgustingly cheer such suffering. Also, to your unsubstantiated point, women are perpetrators of domestic violence in almost 50 percent of cases.  Feminist myths don't survive recent evidence based studies, no matter how much you try to parrot it.

By the way, historically the average man in most societies was forced to die in wars or work in soul crushing jobs, with laws arrayed against him as well.

visionary_23
visionary_23

Boise, black people are proportionally more likely to be a victim of violence, despite being more likely to CAUSE violence as well.

Should we, then, make a violence against white people act?  

You're conflating the men who create violence with the ones who suffer violence, which is nonsensical at best, and immoral at worst.  And then you're suggesting that the public pay for a law that protects a group from violence that statistically is far less likely to suffer it.  If I simply changed the terms from gender (male) to race (black people), feminists would be against the law.  Hypocrisy in action. 

boise_sv66
boise_sv66

BTW, can you cite some studies that show that men are MORE LIKELY to be victims of violence perpetrated by women? The violence against women act explicitly protects women from vulnerable situations such as domestic violence. When the statistics prove that more men are battered at the hands of the women, I am sure advocacy groups will spring up to support the men too.

Otherwise we are ALL protected against violence from anyone based on the laws that exist. Some laws like "hate crime" laws protect vulnerable minorities against specific situations to show that the circumstances are more than what the usual laws define.

boise_sv66
boise_sv66

Equality is always a balancing act. Many hundreds of years, these laws were against women. It was OK to hit your wife as long as it was a stick no thicker than your thumb - look it up. That was a law in England, not Yemen, only few decades back. When we try to correct a situation we exaggerate (ex: affirmative action) to fix the situation more quickly. And I am not denying that the pendulum swings a little too much. But we as humans, with our sixth sense are to correct it, not regress as suggested by William Turner.

eroteme1
eroteme1

Sound thinking!  It is my humble opinion that the USA started going downhill when we gave women the vote.  The ladies vote can often be the decider. Now the more handsome male will win over the less handsome male.  When television entered presidential elections after Eisenhower a bald candidate has not been elected president.  Need one say more?

Lastrova
Lastrova

Totally antiquated and atavistic thinking here, ero.  Back to the cave.

eroteme1
eroteme1

Yes indeed. I should have explained I was trying to be humorous. Humor is obviously not my game, I will try in the future not to try to be humorous.

boise_sv66
boise_sv66

Study and study have proven that women are not visual. They don't even choose their partners based on looks. 

boise_sv66
boise_sv66

Visionary - we are talking about looks and you are talking about war!

visionary_23
visionary_23

Interestingly enough, after women got the right to vote (making them the majority of the electorate), america has been involved in MORE wars than prior. 

anon76returns
anon76returns

You sound like a sweetheart, and I'm sure you're a big hit with the ladies with such talk.

You do know that the reason that there are more women than men employed in the US is because there are many more women than men in the US, right?Out of curiosity, how do you think that the Saudi men should treat the fact that US men still make considerably more money than women for doing exactly the same work?  Let me guess: the Saudi man should support more regressive policy towards women.  Makes perfect sense!

Ken Deemer
Ken Deemer

The pay gap has been proven false many times over by many sources including the Independent Women's Forum.  The sources that say there is a pay gap against women neglect to state that they take the bottom line but never count the number of hours it takes to earn that income...or the danger involved in earning it.  A man working 60 floors up on a steel beam 6 inches wide should get more money then the woman in the construction trailer but not according to those who say there is a pay gap.  

Also did you know Obama pays his female employees less for the same work as he does men? (As do most of the democratic congressmen)

anon76returns
anon76returns

The refutation of the pay gap has been proven false many times over, and by groups that are much less politically invested (and hence carry quite a bit more credibility) than the Independent Women's Forum.  Controlling for workplace danger is certainly possible to do and can be figured in to the statistic- it still doesn't explain the gap.

I'm not sure what pointing out Obama's (and Democratic congressmen's) pay policies does other than reinforce my point that there is gender discrimination in pay in the US.  Thanks, I guess.

Lastrova
Lastrova

Actually no.  What do you think the ratio is for males as househusbands and females as housewives?  Who has the babies--thereby keeping even more women out of paid work?  Frankly, a lot of money is being directed to female athletes BECAUSE they're women, not because they're athletes or because they are in any way particularly more deserving.    

It ain't mommy issues, hon.  It's a lot of whining and whimpering cry babies holding hands and demanding equal rights above and beyond anything that vaguely looks or smells like equality.

And this is from a man who thoroughly enjoys watching women in sport.  Well, maybe not hockey, soccer or tennis, but otherwise yes.  And if women want to box, all the power to them.  Ugly is fashionable in some quarters.  

WilliamL.Turner
WilliamL.Turner

@boise_sv66 It is cute until it manifests itself in something like Sandy Hook or the Boston Marathon Bombings. Men who feel marginalized, whether it is actual or perceived, are not going to sit in the corner and cry in their chili. They will make it your problem!

Lastrova
Lastrova

LOL, you charmer!  But sooo cute?  All right then.

boise_sv66
boise_sv66

A lot of men whining and whimpering for equality on this forum too. But when the men whine, it is soooo cute :)

Carson Daves
Carson Daves

Apex fallacy. Women love to pull the "less money for the same work" debate and it gets debunked every time when other factors are included. The fact is that women now make more money than men in major cities. Even a prominent feminist like Hanna Rosin parades that finding as the death of masculinity. Google is your friend.

By the way, next time you plan to refute someone else's comment, please try to refrain from conjectures and allegations about their personal life or success with the ladies. It will make you sound a lot more intelligent.

anon76returns
anon76returns

"By the way, next time you plan to refute someone else's comment, please try to refrain from conjectures and allegations about their personal life or success with the ladies. It will make you sound a lot more intelligent."

I don't need to sound intelligent to refute the above gibberish, nor quite frankly, do I care what people who defend the statement "I too would support regressive policies barring women from every aspect of society" think of me.  I was replying to a pig statement, and my free advice to you is that if you don't want to sound like a pig then don't defend what they say.

"Women love to pull the "less money for the same work" debate and it gets debunked every time when other factors are included. The fact is that women now make more money than men in major cities. ...Google is your friend."Wait a minute, you're lecturing me on refutation etiquette, and you offer an unsubstantiated assertion, no citation, and the helpful comment that "Google is {my} friend"?  OK, thanks for confirming my first impressions.

boise_sv66
boise_sv66

Lastrova, I agree with you on the point that women could be more creative and judge themselves based on what is best for them than what the men have so far outlined as benchmarks. I believe that will be the next part of our evolution.

Lastrova
Lastrova

It's not only women trying to get into every male nook and cranny.  It's the copy catting and piggy backing.  With so many women involved in some kind of organized political group or help group, why don't they start inventing their own sports, games, etc., rather than clinging to all things man-made with such ownership.

That said, I'd love to hear from women in the know that several sports were in fact invented by or created by women.  That would be very cool.  

boise_sv66
boise_sv66

Visionary - where in my response to Carson did I say everyone is a misogynist?  I said that misogynists should not read these articles because it hurts their feelings. If you set your anger aside, your comprehension will improve :).

visionary_23
visionary_23

Sweeping generalizations aside (i.e. calling everyone a misogynist), why don't feminists and the so-called gender egalitarians leave men alone?  Despite there being state sanctioned women's groups everywhere, the government almost mandates that women be allowed into every male space imaginable.  You know there's some serious daddy issues at play when CNN whines about how comic book conventions are misogynist....

boise_sv66
boise_sv66

Why do misogynists read these articles and work themselves up? Gosh, go solve the issues you have with your mother and leave the other women alone!


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,267 other followers