Equal Rights Amendment?

ponderingturtle said:
I get it schools should view students not as the future but a resource to be exploited. If only Trump University could have been assocaited with the AFL it would have been a perfect marriage that all Americans can love.
Click to expand...
Snark noted; not helping.

In real life, the ERA would have to supervene on the existing Title IX framework for collegiate activities.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Snark noted; not helping.

In real life, the ERA would have to supervene on the existing Title IX framework for collegiate activities.
Click to expand...

Or title IX could be found to be in compliance with the amendment. I mean what next the kind of crazy idea that Team USA women's soccer should be paid as much as the men merely because they are better and more profitable than Team USA men's soccer? That is the kind of crazy talk no true american would ever support.
 
Puppycow said:
OK, this made me curious, so I think I found the case in question:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostker_v._Goldberg



That's just the summary part of course. Follow the link for more. Full decision here.

ETA:
Interestingly though, while Rhenquist's reasoning seemed to be valid at the time, given that women were excluded from combat roles in the military, it may no longer apply:

The highlighted basis for the reasoning is no longer strictly true.
Click to expand...
Wow. I’m impressed you looked all that up. Also that my memory was fairly accurate. I was an opinionated young thing and I felt that Rehnquist was using legislative intention to rationalize what I felt was a blatantly discriminatory law. It was circular. And since we weren’t at war at the time I probably felt the remedy would be to stop requiring that men register.
 
ponderingturtle said:
I mean what next the kind of crazy idea that Team USA women's soccer should be paid as much as the men merely because they are better and more profitable than Team USA men's soccer?
Click to expand...

You think they'd win a head-to-head matchup?

Or do you mean better relative to what the rest of the world has to offer, after segregating leagues based on sex.
 
d4m10n said:
You think they'd win a head-to-head matchup?

Or do you mean better relative to what the rest of the world has to offer, after segregating leagues based on sex.
Click to expand...

They actually can get in the world cup for one. And income raised to your company should in no way determine personal income clearly. I get it even if they actually win the world cup solidly repeatedly and being in more money as women they don't deserve equal pay to men who can't even get into the world cup.

Also clearly Billie Jean King never had a chance.
 
ponderingturtle said:
I mean what next the kind of crazy idea that Team USA women's soccer should be paid as much as the men merely because they are better and more profitable than Team USA men's soccer? That is the kind of crazy talk no true american would ever support.
Click to expand...

They were more profitable for a single year. It's not like sports team are going to pay all women's teams more just because of that.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Why do people always focus on extremes and rare situations? We haven't had a draft in my lifetime. The military hates drafts. It very unlikely we'll have one, so why must the theoretical draft of women play a prominent role in the ERA? Just like how trans rights for ordinary people shouldn't hinge on the arcane rules necessary for Olympic athletes, and government assistance schemes shouldn't revolve around that ONE lady who was a professional scam artist in the 1970s who managed to game the system.

The main body of the thing is what's important, there will always be outliers. If you attempt to handle every conceivable situation no matter how obscure or unlikely you will never get the main work done.
Click to expand...
I get what you’re saying, but in my formative years the draft was not an obscure outlier. It didn’t help that no one could seem to figure out what the US was doing in Vietnam.

I have a hard time believing that the US will ever end up in such a stupid situation again, but for context, we were losing 100 soldiers every week. I can’t picture the US public tolerating that level of carnage these days but it was reality in my tweens/early teens and it made an impression.

TM, from my point of view the country is taking the long way around to becoming about as “progressive” as we were 50 years ago. I realize it took
a longer time to start looking at gay rights but if I’d been aware of the issue I would have been up in arms about that, too. I just figured weed would be legal soon and the absurdity of caring about what 2 grown people got up to in a bedroom would be so self-evident that any stigma would just fall away. Instead, Reagan got elected.
 
theprestige said:
Honest answer: I've never heard such an explanation. I included it for completeness, and to be fair to anyone who might have such an argument, and in the hopes that someone might actually present one. Or at least try.
Click to expand...
("those that can give a coherent explanation for why women should be entitled to serve in combat roles but should not be included in a draft")

I'll give this one a try:
I think it would be for simply pragmatic reasons. The set of all men who could be at least passable soldiers (specifically in combat roles such as infantry) to excellent soldiers is much larger than the set of all women who could be the same. It wouldn't make sense for the army to draft from a pool of potential recruits if they know that greater than 99% of them won't be able to be soldiers. It would be a waste of resources trying to find the 1% of that pool they can use. For the same or similar reasons, men over a certain age are also not subject to the draft, even though some of them might still be capable of serving. Draft age for men was traditionally 19 to 26, although men older or younger were also eligible to volunteer, but not subject to conscription.
 
Puppycow said:
("those that can give a coherent explanation for why women should be entitled to serve in combat roles but should not be included in a draft")

I'll give this one a try:
I think it would be for simply pragmatic reasons. The set of all men who could be at least passable soldiers (specifically in combat roles such as infantry) to excellent soldiers is much larger than the set of all women who could be the same. It wouldn't make sense for the army to draft from a pool of potential recruits if they know that greater than 99% of them won't be able to be soldiers. It would be a waste of resources trying to find the 1% of that pool they can use. For the same or similar reasons, men over a certain age are also not subject to the draft, even though some of them might still be capable of serving. Draft age for men was traditionally 19 to 26, although men older or younger were also eligible to volunteer, but not subject to conscription.
Click to expand...

It's even similar than that, it's about protecting the breeding population. You don't need a lot of males to keep the population going, but you do need a lot of females. If you send your females off to die in a pointless war then you have severely harmed your breeding population, but the same is not true if you send the excess males, because multiple females can mate with a single male and still retain the population. The opposite does not hold true though.
 
ahhell said:
crescent said:
It was a joke, :rolleyes:

Based in part on reality because I have had to design accessible facilities in some pretty absurd locations in the national parks. Literally, a handicap accessible toilet for where the materials needed to be flown in or carried on donkey. To be fair, it never got built because someone realized how silly it was.

Also, a wheel chair lift for a building that was not itself accessible and only meant for use by the park rangers. I'm not sure if that got built.
Click to expand...

I have noticed, when camping, that outhouses all seem have the spacing and rails needed for accessability to handicapped people, even though many of them are in places that it would be extremely difficult or impossible to reach with a wheelchair (up a hill via a dirt path from the nearest parking spot, for example).
Click to expand...
 
PhantomWolf said:
It's even similar than that, it's about protecting the breeding population. You don't need a lot of males to keep the population going, but you do need a lot of females. If you send your females off to die in a pointless war then you have severely harmed your breeding population, but the same is not true if you send the excess males, because multiple females can mate with a single male and still retain the population. The opposite does not hold true though.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
Belz... said:
What does that have to do with the fact that no one's going to pay all women's team more just because of them did well that one year?
Click to expand...
But it isn't one year is it? They are consistently among the best if not the best Woman's National Soccer team in the World. And if that causes an increase of supporters paying at the gate to watch them so that they equal or even surpass the Men's crowds, shouldn't they be worth at least as much as the Men's team in payment?
 
d4m10n said:
This is a very strong argument for (approximately) equal pay, in this sport, here in the U.S.
Click to expand...

I like that in the article they are not even arguing for equal pay, but revenue sharing based on market realities. In other words, pay us based on what we bring in, not on what is between our legs.
 
Dr. Keith said:
I like that in the article they are not even arguing for equal pay, but revenue sharing based on market realities. In other words, pay us based on what we bring in, not on what is between our legs.
Click to expand...

I strongly suspect that the men and women are not paid to play soccer for the US team based on their ability to generate revenue at the box office. They are paid to play soccer because if we don't pay them, they will play somewhere else. And for top soccer-playing men, there are lots of somewhere elses, and for top soccer playing women, not so many.
 
Brainster said:
I strongly suspect that the men and women are not paid to play soccer for the US team based on their ability to generate revenue at the box office. They are paid to play soccer because if we don't pay them, they will play somewhere else. And for top soccer-playing men, there are lots of somewhere elses, and for top soccer playing women, not so many.
Click to expand...

Maybe that is why the men really support what the women are doing.

PS: If a man can qualify for a quality team other than the US team he will likely play for that team. Unless they are so bereft of resources that they have no better chance than the US.
 
Belz... said:
Sorry, I'm aware of that one year. However being 'the best' doesn't mean you bring in more money than the male team.
Click to expand...

Nice goal posts, securely mounted int he ground.

Dr. Keith said:
But, if you bring in more money than the male team then it does mean that you bring in more money than the male team.
Click to expand...

Pretty solid kick, right through the uprights.

Belz... said:
Yyyyes, but so?
Click to expand...

I'm simply correcting your incorrect assumption that they only brought in more money that one year. The women are the best AND they bring in more money.

I won't go chasing the new goal posts.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Nice goal posts, securely mounted int he ground.
Click to expand...

Nice dodge.

I'm simply correcting your incorrect assumption that they only brought in more money that one year. The women are the best AND they bring in more money.
Click to expand...

How in the blue hell do you define "the best", here?

I won't go chasing the new goal posts.
Click to expand...

The posts never moved. You just seem to dislike the reality that I brought up.

If you ever decide to actually address the points, I'll stil be here.
 
Belz... said:
Nice dodge.
Click to expand...

Not a dodge. I was pointing out that in that first post you made a claim that I responded to in the next post.



How in the blue hell do you define "the best", here?
Click to expand...

Quickly runs to wikipedia . . .

wikipedia said:
The team is the most successful in international women's soccer, winning four Women's World Cup titles (including the first Women's World Cup in 1991), four Olympic gold medals (including the first Olympic women's soccer tournament in 1996), and eight CONCACAF Gold Cups. It medaled in every World Cup and Olympic tournament in women's soccer history from 1991 to 2015, before being knocked out in the quarterfinal of the 2016 Summer Olympics.
Click to expand...



The posts never moved. You just seem to dislike the reality that I brought up.

If you ever decide to actually address the points, I'll stil be here.
Click to expand...

You made a claim:
However being 'the best' doesn't mean you bring in more money than the male team.
Click to expand...

I was simply pointing out that they are both the best and they bring in more money than the male team. So in this case, in the actual case we are discussing, being the best does in fact mean bringing in more money than the male team.

If you would like to argue about some other aspect of this story, please start with someone else's post as a laughing pad. Or even another one of my posts.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Not a dodge.
Click to expand...

Of course it's a dodge. You used it to sidestep my point.

Quickly runs to wikipedia . . .
Click to expand...

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks.

You made a claim:
Click to expand...

Well, it's true. I'm not privvy to how that translates into revenue for the team's owners and neither are you. I also pointed out that even bringing in more money doesn't necessarily translate into getting paid more. And as I said before, in some leagues salaries are set by the set of all teams, not just yours.
 
Belz... said:
Of course it's a dodge. You used it to sidestep my point.
Click to expand...

No, I was establishing your point.



Ok, that makes sense. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Really not sure why you even questioned it. One of their best performances was in your country.



Well, it's true. I'm not privvy to how that translates into revenue for the team's owners and neither are you. I also pointed out that even bringing in more money doesn't necessarily translate into getting paid more. And as I said before, in some leagues salaries are set by the set of all teams, not just yours.
Click to expand...

No, it is not true. Your claim is false. Because they bring in more money than the men. They do in fact bring in more money than the men. USWMNT brings in more money than USMNT. Repeat as necessary.

After you get your mind around that repetitions, ask yourself a couple of questions:

Who brings in more money USWNT or USMNT?

Why am I trying to argue a counterfactual when it would be easier to just admit that I was unaware that the USWMNT is far more successful in financial terms than the USMNT?​
 
Dr. Keith said:
No, I was establishing your point.
Click to expand...

Say what? All you said was that I was moving the goalposts, which wasn't the case, and in doing so you didn't address what I said. Did you lose track?

Really not sure why you even questioned it. One of their best performances was in your country.
Click to expand...

My country? What makes you think I follow this sport at all?

No, it is not true. Your claim is false. Because they bring in more money than the men. They do in fact bring in more money than the men. USWMNT brings in more money than USMNT. Repeat as necessary.
Click to expand...

You didn't read what I wrote: "bring in more money" may or may not translate in actually more profit, depending on what you mean by it. And I suspect you don't know more than I do on this point. Do you think you could address this specific point, please?
 
Belz... said:
Sorry, I'm aware of that one year. However being 'the best' doesn't mean you bring in more money than the male team.
Click to expand...

The claim that I have highlighted is false in the context of the US national soccer teams.

The evidence that it is false is that the USWNT brings in more money than the USMNT.

Not in one year, but over the recent past. This is trend that heavily favors the vastly more popular USWNT. They are champions and they have broad support across the country.

That is all.

If you meant something other than that when you said "bring in more money" then I am sorry to have wasted your time by interpreting your claim as plain English. I will endeavor to not make that mistake in the future.
 
Dr. Keith said:
The claim that I have highlighted is false in the context of the US national soccer teams.
Click to expand...

What do you mean, it's "false"? Being the best automatically means you bring in more money? What?

The evidence that it is false is that the USWNT brings in more money than the USMNT.
Click to expand...

Oh, ok. You didn't mean it's false. You meant that in this case they are the best AND bring in more money.

Not in one year, but over the recent past. This is trend that heavily favors the vastly more popular USWNT. They are champions and they have broad support across the country.
Click to expand...

Are the wages determined on a team level or for the whole league?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom