13907775:PinsAndNeedles said:
I never said it was just a money thing. I actually think it's a culture thing, but that's a whole different topic, and one that ties into the money thing in a whole different way. It's also a thing about men feeling the biological/cultural need to take their lives in their hands far more often than women.
All I'm saying is that there is a systemic problem of sexism in almost all sports (and in society as a whole). And the pay is a part of the cause, not a part of the effect. Women are paid less habitually in every aspect of life, and that's bull, and that includes in skiing. This is not JUST A SEXISM thing, as you so gently put it, and that kind of generalization is what keeps the system as it is.
Let me clarify what I mean by throwing down: I mean putting in effort. Just because women don't land tricks as big as men doesn't mean they aren't trying just as hard or competing just as hard. Again, check the generalization there.
I never said they were. Read what I said - we need to foster a culture and community that brings women into the sport. I don't just mean bringing current athletes into competition, but literally programs and culture from the ground up, from age 4-99. Again, never said anything about boycotting skiing, but we can absolutely use our voices to speak out against inequality.
Of course you don't have a problem with it. You're not traveling hundreds of miles, training hundreds of hours, doing the exact same things that men are doing (not necessarily tricks, but effort, since we're being specific) and getting paid less than half of what a man who put in less hours but can throw one extra turn or one extra cork is getting.
Again, this is not just sexism. This is systematic inequality. If this were a format where competition fees literally determined prize purse, then this would be a nix point, but it's not. We're talking a world-wide, big stage comp here, something that fans of the sport, men and women, worldwide, will be tuning in on. And once again, the message we're broadcasting is that just because women spin less, or cork less, they get paid less. If they were competing directly against men (something that is also unfair), perhaps it would be more justified. I think big comps absolutely need to have fair purses. The Olympics does it, why can't world champs?
Yes exactly, anyone who does less spins, or less corks should get paid less. Just like the person who makes widgets, but less in quality and amount than the next person, should be paid less—regardless of their sex.
It’s been proven repeatedly that the wage gap doesn’t exist or totally disappears (some sources say there’s a 2-3% gap that exists when other factors are controlled for) when all factors are controlled. Most people think the .77 to the dollar figure means “women are paid less for the exact same work in the exact same job” when really it’s simply the total pay of all women vs. the total pay of all men. It doesn’t take into account hours worked, years in a particular job/field, overtime, the nature of the various jobs, the danger of various jobs, etc.
Men and women make different choices in life, and you can’t dismiss them all simply by saying that those choices solely reflect societal and cultural influence/grooming. No one is up in arms about how few women plumbers, sanitation workers, framers, electricians, etc. there are, and why is that? I think it’s because they are grueling, thankless, less than glamorous, demand long hours, dangerous, etc.
On the other hand, women outnumber men by a huge margin in the healthcare industry overall. It’s not close. So should we go out and tell nurses they have to be electricians? Many electricians make more than nurses, so it’d help close the wage gap and we could make sure that all industries have a 50/50 sex representation. We could also say that 13% of the workforce needs to be African American and so on. At what level does personal choice come into the picture however? I don’t think anyone is actively repressing women’s participation in plumbing, nor do I think anyone is ensuring men don’t become nurses.
I think freeskiing is a perfect example of an “industry” (lol....industry....freeskiing.....no one but Tom Wallisch and Candide make anything but ok) where by far more men naturally gravitate towards spinning and flipping through the air on skis. That’s borne out by simply looking around at the drop in to a park.
Sure, there are some women who are right there with them doing incredible things with skis on their feet, but for every one girl there’s what....20 guys? At least? Now is that because skiing itself— I mean just going out and skiing and hitting jumps and rails when no one else is looking or gives a shit— is inherently or systemically sexist? Is it because fellow park skiers are all so intolerant and inhospitable to women that this huge crop of potential lifelong freeski competitors are chased off from the start? Is it because it’s so ingrained in girls that they’re only option in life is to get married, ride horses, and play with barbies? I don’t think that’s the case, certainly not in my lifetime.
Men and women are very different, and it’s become taboo to even say so, and I can’t understand why. That’s not a bad thing, and there are plenty of areas where women are far more competent and capable than men. Furthermore, women in the United States and elsewhere are in a position to literally go out and do whatever it is that they want to do, and thank god that’s the case. I don’t want to live somewhere where that isn’t true. The only thing holding back women’s skiing in 2018 is the lack of female participants.
The debate is why that is, and I believe it’s because it’s a niche sport with high consequence and little reward other than the inherent reward of enjoying it. You can argue that it’s something else, but I’m not convinced.
To me, lack of female participation is why prize money is low, not the other way around.
