Tag: gender differences

Women’s tennis: higher pay for weaker play, less work, less spectators, less advertising dollars

Women tennis players get  the same pay for less work (fewer shorter sets), lower performance (women are chanceless against any male top 500 player), less productivity (they have fewer spectators that pay less). In other words, women’s equal prize money gets subsidized  by the performance of the males.  Equal prize money actually leads to Wimbledon top 10 women getting higher pay then men. Women play shorter games, thus they have time to make extra money in more games, like doubles. Women also tend to get more sponsor money.  ESPN

venus-williams-dubai2Feminists manage to interfere in free market pricing of wages and prizes and enforce excessive pay for women.. Free market admission prices are lower for a spectator’s seat in women’s finals.

Venus Williams, the defending champion and three-time winner, said the women simply want to be treated equally.

"This is not just about women’s tennis but about women all over the world," she told BBC Radio before Wimbledon’s announcement. "At Wimbledon we would like to have equal prize money to prove that we are equal on all fronts." 2

The same Venus Williams that was annihilated by #203 in the men’s ranking!  Such demagoguery . If women are "equal on all fronts", why do women need separate categories? Let them play against men, and whoever wins gets the prize.

Human-Stupidity Analysis: women get same pay for lower productivity

We are absolutely dumbfounded how the world has been brainwashed that women should get the same money for lower productivity, less work, lower performance.

Feminist success is admirable. The suffragettes got the vote without the draft. Today women get quotas for executive jobs but no quotas for death row.And now. equal pay for less work. Women  world-wide receive about twice as much pension money as they deserve: they contribute less and receive more then men.

WIMBLEDON, England (AP) — After years of holding out against equal prize money, Wimbledon bowed to public pressure Thursday and agreed to pay women players as much as the men at the world’s most prestigious tennis tournament. 4

Anna Kournikova, spectator magnet

Feminists exert public pressure to get women  undeserved "equality" for unequal work.

We are stunned how undeniable, but politically in-correct, facts get covered up by academic research, politicians and the press. We had to search hard to find hard data on gender differences, on real competitions between men and women. 

Women: inferior players

One might perfectly say that a top class women tennis player should get the same money as an equally strong male player. Women’s #1 champions are chanceless against the Top 500 men. #203 ranked man totally annihilated both Williams sisters in one afternoon.   So why should the top ranked women be paid more then the male # 500 that plays better then she does, and who gets no prize whatsoever? ` When female player Chris Evert-Lloyd was at her peak, she said her brother who played low level college tennis beat her (authoritative source for this, anyone?)

We suspect that maybe women champions are chanceless against the top 10 000 male players. They are just to embarrassed to try. It sure would make an interesting project for college research or a TV series: Top 10 female Tennis Players against the #5 man of Stanford University.  It would be a serious blow to feminist equality claims, if the #1 ranked  woman champion loses against the #15 ranked man of an average College.  Political correctness has a vested interest to hide such facts.  Interestingly, women can not even compete with men in chess or snooker, where physical prowess is of no importance.

Women: shorter duration play

So if fewer spectators pay to see females play compared to the men, and broadcasters tolerate the women’s game rather than actively promote it, then how can they justify the equal prize money that some of them — most notably the Williams sisters — lobbied so forcefully for?  […]

Should women’s finals be according to the same rules as men’s finals?

Because as top female player Jelena Jankovic whined last week at the prospect of playing best of five: ‘What, you want to drive us into oblivion?’

So, we want the same money because we’re women. But we don’t want to do the same work. Because we are women.

But only a sexist pig would point out that absurdity, of course.”

Venus Williams feminist political message

I believe that athletes — especially female athletes in the world’s leading sport for women — should serve as role models. The message I like to convey to women and girls across the globe is that there is no glass ceiling. My fear is that Wimbledon is loudly and clearly sending the opposite message…. 5

In other words: If women, unjustly, get equal money for unequal work in sports, then it sends a message for women to get equal money for unequal work in the work place.

The pay gap lie

Similarly, the so called pay gap in the work place is a lie, which unfortunately is repeated even by the Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  Warren Farrell has proved that the pay gap is due to women’s work choices and that, due to affirmative action, women earn MORE for same work.

70 year olds, children, midgets, featherweights, handicapped:  justice and equality for all

Let us get equal prize money for the children’s tennis champion, the over 70 year old master’s champions (they spent 60 years training, and thus should get bigger prizes), the handicapped people’s special Olympics champion. After all, they are all champions! One should not discriminate by age or handicap! And of course, the featherweight boxer should get the same prize money as the heavy weight champion of all categories. What about a midget category in basket ball? Why should midgets get paid less then Michael Jordan?

Equal Prize Money in Tennis – a Con Job.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Women’s tennis: higher pay for weaker play, less work, less spectators, less advertising dollars” »
Women’s tennis: higher pay for weaker play, less work, less …
» continues here »

Rape and murder of males deemed irrelevant

The press decries systematic rape of women in African war zones while keeping quiet about the killing of even more men.

When the men go out, they’re killed. The women are only raped.’”

Women’s suffering emphasized, men’s suffering ignored. An evolutionary mechanism?

Women have a special talent to paint themselves as victims and engage men as "white knights" to help them in that endeavor. The even higher level suffering and plight of men is just getting ignored. Human-Stupidity suspects that this manipulation skill is due to evolutionary built in mechanisms that women learned in the gender war, to counter men’s superior strength. It is to be noted that the limiting factor for child production (and thus inclusive fitness) is the number of women’s wombs, not the number of men. As Angry Harry puts it: men are dispensable.

Women are always the victims. In rallies, women "take back the knight" at safe campuses, requesting safety for women no matter how drunk. Nobody mentions that statistically men are more frequently victims of violence and homicide. Women stress rape culture, re-defining rape to include ever more minute transgressions like 5 second rape (failure to instantly stop consensual sex).

Women, engaging the help of men, manage to raise public awareness about rape while ignoring prison rape. Prison rape is extremely violent, and often entails years of sexual slavery and repeated rape. Prisoners who "consent" to years of sex to avoid violence don’t even count as rape victims.

Media focus on rapes and other female miseries while ignoring male executions, worked-to-death laborers, tortured prisoners, and nine-year-old boy soldiers trained to kill and be killed.

An excerpt from Tim’s new book Loving Men, Respecting Women: The Future of Gender Politics

‘When the men go out, they’re killed. The women are only raped.’”

A case in point is provided in an editorial by Nicholas D. Kristof, published June 5, 2005 in the New York Times under the heading, “A Policy of Rape.” Says Kristof, “More than two years after the genocide in Darfur began, the women of Kalma Camp—a teeming squatter’s camp of 110,000 people driven from their burned villages—still face the risk of gang rape every single day as they go out looking for firewood.” Now, of course, this is an abomination that demands attention. It is also an abomination that receives attention. My concern with this article comes from what’s missing—at least up until the very end. “I’m still chilled by the matter-of-fact explanation I received as to why it is women who collect firewood, even though they’re the ones who are raped,” says Kristof. “‘It’s simple,’ one woman here explained. ‘When the men go out, they’re killed. The women are only raped.’”

 

Inside Story – The silent victims of rape | Al Jazeera Video

The United Nations, even in security council resolutions, explicitly excludes men and boys when they talk about sexual violence against women and girls. The United Nations spokeswomen squirmed herself out of the topic, distracting but not recognizing the United Nation bias against male victims.

The above movie focuses on male rape. it still ignores other types of violence that is selectively anti-male.  It mentions that 20% of male combatants got raped, vs. 30% of women. It does not mention how many men got killed, nor that there probably are not many female combatants.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Rape and murder of males deemed irrelevant” »
Rape and murder of males deemed irrelevant
» continues here »

Legal right to renounce child support empowers women, increases birth rates

Contractual freedom to agree about child support rights

Many women want to have a baby, but, for some reason, don’t find the appropriate man or husband. A man willing to the father and take on fatherly duties. The typical solution is to “forget” to take the pill or just let the man falsely assume she is taking birth control.

child-support-hearing1) Women should have right to renounce rights to father’s child support

We propose that

a) A woman should be empowered to contractually agree with a man to have his baby and not demand any child support.

Advantages:

  1. In most developed countries, more babies are urgently needed. This probably will lead to higher birth rates. The richer, more educated, more capacitated women will have children of their choice, that are wanted.
  2. No manipulation needed, no dishonesty about accidentally “forgotten birth control” to get pregnant against the man’s expressed wish
  3. female empowerment: the woman can have her wish, pick the father of her choice and have a baby.
      1. Most men would feel honored to be chosen as a father, without being obliged to support the baby nor having to get along with the woman for the next 20 years.
      2. many men would, voluntarily, by mutual agreement give some aid and support in child raising, in spite of the waiver.
  4. funny-pictures-child-support-catIt fixes our perverted system in which
    1. the most irresponsible and uncontrolled, least intelligent and poorest men have the most offspring
      1. these people are the most unfit genetically (their offspring will be less intelligent and have less self control)
      2. these people are also most unfit as parents and educators: they are less responsible, less intelligent
      3. these people are less unfit financially to provide a good home
    2. society pays for these offspring, with welfare that often encourages the poor to have more offspring to receive more money. These children are not welcome and loved, they are either accidents or planned to increase welfare income. A bad and traumatic start of a life for a baby.
    3. The well-to-do fear child support payments. Poor deadbeats that are unable to pay, and anonymous one night stances can get unlimited offspring without legal and financial responsibility

    5. island-child-supportb) A man should be allowed to contractually assume all child care and support obligations after birth

    Equally, a man can agree to take a child, after birth, assuming all child care and support.

    This might convince a woman to forego abortion, or to become pregnant.

    This ultimately empowers women, because it still is fully her choice to decide to terminate a pregnancy. She might find it attractive to have a baby without obligations.

    Or she might do it as favor for the man, almost like a surrogate pregnancy.

    All this would help to increase birth rate and reduce the population shortage problem in developed countries.

    Who will pay for children’s needs?

    If one party was relieved of his/her obligation, the other party.

    1. The party that took up the contractual obligation, mostly the mother. After all are women not empowered and independent? Don’t women have professions, salary, self sufficiency. Women did this for centuries and millennia, before the advent of liberated professional women and welfare.
    2. Welfare support. Government already pays support for children of deadbeat dads and moms in poverty. Why can’t they pay for the honest working tax paying father? Whoever took up the responsibility should pay him/herself, unless they are below poverty level.

    Your comments are welcome

    All this is a suggestion and, of course, open to discussion. Please comment

    Contractual freedom to agree about child support rights

    Many women want to have a baby, but, for some reason, don’t find the appropriate man or husband. A man willing to the father and assume fatherly duties. The typical solution is to dupe a man into fatherhood by lying about birth control.

    child-support-hearing1) Women should have right to renounce rights to father’s child support

    We propose that

    a) A woman should be empowered to contractually agree with a man to have his baby and not demand any child support.

    Advantages:

    1. In most developed countries, more babies are urgently needed. This probably will lead to higher birth rates. The richer, more educated, more capacitated women will have children of their choice, that are wanted.
    2. No manipulation needed, no dishonesty about accidentally "forgotten birth control" to get pregnant against the man’s expressed wish
    3. female empowerment: the woman can have her wish, pick the father of her choice and have a baby.
      1. Most men would feel honored to be chosen as a father, without being obliged to support the baby nor having to get along with the woman for the next 20 years.
      2. many men would, voluntarily, by mutual agreement give some aid and support in child raising, in spite of the waiver.
  5. funny-pictures-child-support-catIt fixes our perverted system in which
    1. the most irresponsible and uncontrolled, least intelligent and poorest men have the most offspring
      1. these people are the most unfit genetically (their offspring will be less intelligent and have less self control)
      2. these people are also most unfit as parents and educators: they are less responsible, less intelligent
      3. these people are less unfit financially to provide a good home
    2. society pays for these offspring, with welfare that often encourages the poor to have more offspring to receive more money. These children are not welcome and loved, they are either accidents or planned to increase welfare income. A bad and traumatic start of a life for a baby.
    3. The well-to-do fear child support payments. Poor deadbeats that are unable to pay, and anonymous one night stances can get unlimited offspring without legal and financial responsibility

    6. island-child-supportb) A man should be allowed to contractually assume all child care and support obligations after birth

    Equally, a man can agree to take a child, after birth, assuming all child care and support.

    This might convince a woman to forego abortion, or to become pregnant.

    This ultimately empowers women, because it still is fully her choice to decide to terminate a pregnancy. She might find it attractive to have a baby without obligations.

    Or she might do it as favor for the man, almost like a surrogate pregnancy.

    All this would help to increase birth rate and reduce the population shortage problem in developed countries.

    Who will pay for children’s needs?

    If one party was relieved of his/her obligation, the other party.

    1. The party that took up the contractual obligation, mostly the mother. After all are women not empowered and independent? Don’t women have professions, salary, self sufficiency. Women did this for centuries and millennia, before the advent of liberated professional women and welfare.
    2. Welfare support. Government already pays support for children of deadbeat dads and moms in poverty. Why can’t they pay for the honest working tax paying father? Whoever took up the responsibility should pay him/herself, unless they are below poverty level.

    Your comments are welcome

    All this is a suggestion and, of course, open to discussion. Please comment

    Contractual freedom to agree about child support rights

    Many women want to have a baby, but, for some reason, don’t find the appropriate man or husband. A man willing to the father and assume fatherly duties. The typical solution is to dupe a man into fatherhood by lying about birth control.

    child-support-hearing1) Women should have right to renounce rights to father’s child support

    We propose that

    a) A woman should be empowered to contractually agree with a man to have his baby and not demand any child support.

    Advantages:

    1. In most developed countries, more babies are urgently needed. This probably will lead to higher birth rates. The richer, more educated, more capacitated women will have children of their choice, that are wanted.
    2. No manipulation needed, no dishonesty about accidentally "forgotten birth control" to get pregnant against the man’s expressed wish
    3. female empowerment: the woman can have her wish, pick the father of her choice and have a baby.
      1. Most men would feel honored to be chosen as a father, without being obliged to support the baby nor having to get along with the woman for the next 20 years.
      2. many men would, voluntarily, by mutual agreement give some aid and support in child raising, in spite of the waiver.
  6. funny-pictures-child-support-catIt fixes our perverted system in which
    1. the most irresponsible and uncontrolled, least intelligent and poorest men have the most offspring
      1. these people are the most unfit genetically (their offspring will be less intelligent and have less self control)
      2. these people are also most unfit as parents and educators: they are less responsible, less intelligent
      3. these people are less unfit financially to provide a good home
    2. society pays for these offspring, with welfare that often encourages the poor to have more offspring to receive more money. These children are not welcome and loved, they are either accidents or planned to increase welfare income. A bad and traumatic start of a life for a baby.
    3. The well-to-do fear child support payments. Poor deadbeats that are unable to pay, and anonymous one night stances can get unlimited offspring without legal and financial responsibility

    7. island-child-supportb) A man should be allowed to contractually assume all child care and support obligations after birth

    Equally, a man can agree to take a child, after birth, assuming all child care and support.

    This might convince a woman to forego abortion, or to become pregnant.

    This ultimately empowers women, because it still is fully her choice to decide to terminate a pregnancy. She might find it attractive to have a baby without obligations.

    Or she might do it as favor for the man, almost like a surrogate pregnancy.

    All this would help to increase birth rate and reduce the population shortage problem in developed countries.

    Who will pay for children’s needs?

    If one party was relieved of his/her obligation, the other party.

    1. The party that took up the contractual obligation, mostly the mother. After all are women not empowered and independent? Don’t women have professions, salary, self sufficiency. Women did this for centuries and millennia, before the advent of liberated professional women and welfare.
    2. Welfare support. Government already pays support for children of deadbeat dads and moms in poverty. Why can’t they pay for the honest working tax paying father? Whoever took up the responsibility should pay him/herself, unless they are below poverty level.

    Your comments are welcome

    All this is a suggestion and, of course, open to discussion. Please comment

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Legal right to renounce child support empowers women, increases birth rates” »
    Legal right to renounce child support empowers women, increases bi…
    » continues here »

    Wikipedia discriminates against women? Or gender differences are real?

    Surveys suggest that less than 15 percent of the online encyclopedia’s hundreds of thousands of contributors are female. […]

    Sue Gardner, the executive director of the foundation, has set a goal to raise the share of female contributors to 25 percent by 2015, but she is running up against the traditions of the computer world and an obsessive fact-loving realm that is dominated by men and, some say, uncomfortable for women.

    Her effort is not diversity for diversity’s sake, she says. “This is about wanting to ensure that the encyclopedia is as good as it could be,”  

    Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia’s Contributor List

    Is Wikipedia creating a glass ceiling, actively blocking women from participating? Well, or maybe women are different. Or maybe men really are the gender that creates knowledge, wealth, public services, etc?

    I would imagine that if less than 15% of the contributors are women, then much less than 15% of the work is done by women.

    Considering that almost nobody gets paid for Wikipedia, the most obvious thing that can be said about its existence from a gender point of view is that the human race owes a debt of gratitude to the male sex.

    [… men see the point] n working for free to expand access to information for people they don’t know. But blaming any problem, even one as exiguous as women not contributing much unpaid labor to Wikipedia, on women is a no-no, so the fault must lie with “misogynists.”

    Guys Create Wikipedia For Free: That’s A Problem
    Related articles
    Enhanced by Zemanta

    Hanna Rosin on the rise of women (TED talks)

    Quite a shocking speech. Hanna Rosin fails to mention the constant discrimination against men and boys, and against masculine traits and behaviors, from kindergarten on.

    But, judging from her speech, men clearly need to be protected and have affirmative action, as a disadvantaged class.

    Female quotas on death row? Unsuccessful male losers overlooked by feminist zeal!

    Males are overrepresented in jail, death row, war death, work accidents, accidental death & involuntary middle age virginity, reproductive failures, mental retardation. Feminist and men’s right’s activist fail to request female quotas in jail.  Isn’t it funny? We need quotas in politics, management, Universities. But no quotas among homeless and war dead? No gender equality on Titanic life boat seats!

    Suffrage: Women wanting equal Rights
    Feminism: Women want equal Rights (Suffrage)

    Compare: Germany plans mandatory female quotas in top management

    some women systematically looked up at the top of society and saw men everywhere: most world rulers, presidents, prime ministers, most members of Congress and parliaments, most CEOs of major corporations, and so forth — these are mostly men.
    The mistake in that way of thinking is to look only at the top. If one were to look downward to the bottom of society instead, one finds mostly men there too. Who’s in prison, all over the world, as criminals or political prisoners? The population on Death Row has never approached 51% female. Who’s homeless? Again, mostly men. Whom does society use for bad or dangerous jobs? US Department of Labor statistics report that 93% of the people killed on the job are men. Likewise, who gets killed in battle? Even in today’s American army, which has made much of integrating the sexes and putting women into combat, the risks aren’t equal. This year we passed the milestone of 3,000 deaths in Iraq, and of those, 2,938 were men, 62 were women.

    From the beginning, feminism was against equal duties
    Equal rights, equal duty. Did feminists fight for conscription for women?

    One can imagine an ancient battle in which the enemy was driven off and the city saved, and the returning soldiers are showered with gold coins. An early feminist might protest that hey, all those men are getting gold coins, half of those coins should go to women. In principle, I agree. But remember, while the men you see are getting gold coins, there are other men you don’t see, who are still bleeding to death on the battlefield from spear wounds.
    Is There Anything Good About Men? by Roy F. Baumeister

    Men outnumber women both among the losers and among the biggest winners

    Men take high risks. They reap high rewards, and pay with death, injury, abysmal failures. Feminists are envious of the winners, and oblivious of the losers. They want to get the gold coins without risking their lives in the fight.

    Evolution built this higher risk, higher variance even into genetics of male physical features:  There are more men that are extremely tall, extremely intelligent, etc and there are more men then women at the bottom, with the lowest IQ, shortest height, etc.

    Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.

    Over half the males but very few females were reproductive failures

    Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. [ . . ] Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago [2005].

    I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.

    In evolutionary times, in the “EEA” 100 000 years ago, only very few women failed to reproduce, but about 60% of the men were total evolutionary failures. They are the end of their genetic line.  Every man or women know that some guys are girl magnets, while others barely stand a chance: Nerds, socially inept, shy, ugly, handicapped. And even nowadays, with legally enforced monogamy, there still is serial monogamy after divorce, and affairs, both practiced mainly by successful men.

    In terms of the biological competition to produce offspring, then, men outnumbered women both among the losers and among the biggest winners. [ . . . ]  Experts estimate Genghis Khan had several hundred and perhaps more than a thousand children. […] For him, the big risks led to huge payoffs in offspring. My point is that no woman, even if she conquered twice as much territory as Genghis Khan, could have had a thousand children.

    And thousand’s of wanna-be Genghis Khan’s died before they had a chance to reproduce. And others were snubbed by women.

    Feminists look for equal rights without equal risk & equal losses.

    Most cultures have tended to use men for these high-risk, high-payoff slots much more than women. I shall propose there are important pragmatic reasons for this. The result is that some men reap big rewards while others have their lives ruined or even cut short. Most cultures shield their women from the risk and therefore also don’t give them the big rewards

    Men outnumber women both among the losers and among the biggest winners

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Female quotas on death row? Unsuccessful male losers overlooked by feminist zeal!” »
    Female quotas on death row? Unsuccessful male losers overlooked by…
    » continues here »