Hacker News Reader

Comment by rglullis | Hacker News Reader

Seriously asking, what opportunities are denied to women in sports?

Is there a single woman on any of the teams in any of the leagues listed at the following?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_lea...

It's a list sorted by revenue. Female sports don't make a fraction of what male sports do. Female's in general are not as interested in sports as makes are. Whether cultural or not is debatable, though I imagine at least a large part of it is. However, a list like this is not proof that women are not allowed the opportunity, only that, when given the opportunity, they have failed to capitalize on it. Look at the WNBA.

I of course admit that the argument can get circular. Current culture -> unsuccessful female sports -> reinforcement of current culture.

EDIT: Care to comment? What about this is factually incorrect?

They get paid less; they don't get to set their pay; but it's somehow their fault that they get paid less?

It's the same for men in fashion. It is just a matter of market value. We are talking about opportunities here, not how valued they are.

You can talk about whatever you want. When I kicked off the thread, it was to point out how the structure of sports in our society puts women in a ghetto, in ways that e.g. the admittedly imperfect tech industry doesn't even approach, and yet sports get a complete pass on this. Even many outspoken feminists settle for Title-IX-style resource-grubbing rather than challenging the basic structure of the ghetto.

Any argument you might make defending the sports status quo would have applied to any sexist cultural institution ever. Case in point: every single sentence in the comment to which this is a response.

I guess we are talking about very different things. I am talking about opportunities in sports, not about the state of the sports industry.

The men's basketball medal counts just the same as the women's in the Olympics. They both had to train and practice the same to get to that point. That's all I care when I think about opportunities.

They get paid less because they work in a much smaller market. Does it also upset you that stage actors make less than AAA movie stars?

People are not blocked from being AAA movie stars on the basis of their gender.

Right, because they have the physical capacity to compete. In the NFL, the NBA, the MLB, etc., they don't. They just plain don't. If that confuses you then go take it out on God or biology.

If that is true why not let women try out for it?

Because at best it's a publicity stunt and wastes the time of all involved? Do you really think that a woman can compete with men on a football field? C'mon. Even the women in these sports laugh at the idea.

Is there a single man on the list of highest paid fashion models? http://www.forbes.com/models/

What exactly is your point?

It is because the men are behind the curtains making the actual money:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-15-wealthiest-people-in-f...

(Note: everyone there is a white old dude, other than the two women, who inherited the money from white old dudes)

Being noticed at all at the top level? What is the difference between the price payed for an ad at the men's superbowl, versus an ad at the women's superbowl?

Really? Since when do we live in the era where "being noticed" is a right?

What is next? Affirmative action for TV time during the Superbowl or the World Cup?

The difference is that millions of people watch men's football.

Most high schools and colleges dedicate a very small portion of the sports budget to women's sport as opposed to men's.

No this is completely wrong. Look up Title IX.

It's the reason the university I went to e.g. had a women's swim team but not a men's team.

Actually, they don't, but the male sports, particularly football, do pay for the female sports.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com