Fembots browbeat Wimbledon


——————————————————-

22 February 2007

tennis.jpg

A female tennis player. Allegedly.

Wimbledon pays equal prize money

Equal pay for non-equal work basically.

As is pointed out in the article, women only have to play best-of-three sets whilst men play best-of-five. So the women have far less work to do as the men but will now get just as much of a reward.

Just like in the workplace in general I suppose.

Peter Fleming, with whom McEnroe won four Wimbledon doubles titles and three US Opens, said equal pay “was just a matter of time”.

“It’s almost a non-issue in my eyes,” he told Five Live.

“The difference last year was so small – it was a symbolic gesture for the last couple of years – but finally the club have realised it’s not worth the effort to maintain it. It’s equal pay and off we go to bigger and better things.”

So what this mangina is saying is that basically it wasn’t worth the effort of keeping things fair because women were whining and bitching so much that they wanted to be paid as much as men but without having to put in as much effort (under the misnomer of ‘equality’) that they just had to give in.

That’s how feminism works; whine, whine and fucking whine until some manginas cave in, instead of bitch-slapping the miserable dykes – literally or otherwise – and telling them to shut the fuck up.

Fleming said he hoped that any male players angry at the decision would see the light eventually. “They’ll grow up at some point,” he said.

Peter Fleming, for your pitiful employment of shaming language, I hereby declare you to be Mangina Of The Month.

Cocksucker.

If female tennis players want to earn as much as the men, let them play best-of-five sets. If women continue to complain about how they are paid less than men in sports in general, then let them compete with men in things like running, football, boxing, etc.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:29 PM

——————————————————-

At 8:35 PM, Field Marshall Watkins said…

Peter Fleming, with whom McEnroe won four Wimbledon doubles titles and three US Opens, said equal pay “was just a matter of time”.

– Like it matters how many matches the prick has won. Doesn’t mean he isn’t talking shit.

I knew this article would do the rounds, if this isn’t a perfect example of a feminists definition of ‘equality’ than I’m a mangina.

Nothing else need be said. I’d like to see anyone try and defend this article on one of our blogs…

——————————————————-

At 8:58 PM, Anonymous said…

Just wanted to say I relate to your posts. I think MGTOW is growing in Finland too.

——————————————————-

At 3:05 AM, Anonymous said…

If anybody is a “mangina”, it’s YOU, Duncan. All you do is bitch on this blog. I see your comments are pre-moderated… further proof that you’re a dickless wonder.

Oh, men have it sooooo bad…. NOT. I see some people need a history lesson.

Just one of MANY examples that proves how shitty your gender is/was.

One word: KARMA. Deal with it, spawn of Satan.

——————————————————-

At 3:19 AM, Anonymous said…

It’s even worse than it seems. From a 2006 article on the issue:

“…because of the physical demands of best-of-five matches, the top men rarely play in Grand Slam doubles events and they earn less overall than women, who often compete in singles, doubles and mixed doubles.

“It just doesn’t seem right to us that the lady players could play in three events and could take away significantly more than the men’s champion who battles away through these best-of-five matches.

“We also would point that the top 10 ladies last year earned more from Wimbledon that the top 10 men did.”

So women have been out earning the men all along due to only having to play less-demanding best-of-three matches. Paying them the same for these as men get for best-of-five matches is just an added injustice.

——————————————————-

At 4:21 AM, Anonymous said…

I agree with you frequently but in this case there is an actual reason for paying equally. The women’s matches actually generate higher TV ratings than the men’s do and thus more ad revenue, so the female players my play for less time, but they are more productive in an economic sense.

——————————————————-

At 6:43 AM, Anonymous said…

Just a comment supporting the work of “The Eternal Bachelor” in general. I accidentally came across this blog several weeks ago and have been an avid reader ever since. I had always believed that marriage,etc. was the way to go assuming the many horror stories I heard about divorce and marriage to be the exception. I now think very differently and will be much more vigilant in my dealings with women. Keep up the good work!

P.S. Re: Peter Fleming. Doubles players are either players past their prime or hacks who couldn’t make the grade.

——————————————————-

At 7:27 AM, Anonymous said…

“She looka like a man.”

— Cookie Kwan, a.k.a Alex Borstein character from Mad TV.

——————————————————-

At 8:20 AM, Duncan Idaho said…

If anybody is a “mangina”, it’s YOU, Duncan. All you do is bitch on this blog.

I don’t bitch, I insult, poke fun and vow terrible revenge.

If anyone is bitching it’s you, ya fucking stupid cunt. Go and get cunt cancer bitch.

Oh, and thank’s for calling me ‘dickless’, that’s only the 1,000th time this month. Come up with something original you whore.

——————————————————-

At 9:54 AM, Anonymous said…

Anon at 4:21 AM said:

I agree with you frequently but in this case there is an actual reason for paying equally. The women’s matches actually generate higher TV ratings than the men’s do and thus more ad revenue, so the female players my play for less time, but they are more productive in an economic sense.

What the hell does it have to do with TV ratings? It’s a competition to find the best tennis players, not a popularity contest or a fashion show!

Keep up the good work, Duncan.

——————————————————-

At 10:06 AM, Off Centre View said…

Duncan, I think with Anon@3:05am you can pretty much cross off a few more boxes on fembot bingo!

As for Wimbledon, I think that women should now play five set games (if they are to get paid the same as men) – after all isn’t that equal pay for an equal job?

…or is this another case of feminist “eekwallidee” which actually means female female privilege? I do, however, see how the ad revenue argument as mentioned earlier (that possibly more people watch women’s matches then men’s) is an interesting one, but would need more research to support.

I enjoy your blog and find your perspective really interesting. I’m not (yet) an eternal bachelor myself, but I can see your argument. One of my best friends is getting married soon to a divorced woman with whom he’s had a complicated history – things between them are good at the moment, but if things on these MRA sites are clear I’m worried about their future.

Feel free to post a link to my new blog (www.offcentreview.blog.co.uk). I try to take an interesting perspective on things, but I’m fairly new to the whole blog thing and would appreciate comments.

Peace,
Off Centre View

——————————————————-

At 10:30 AM, Anonymous said…

anonymous 3:05 AM

Ohhh, ain’t that sweet. You had to go back only cca 2500 years to come up with examples of women being “oppressed”.

And next time when you’ll be at it, try to check out responsibilities of men that women didn’t have in that period, too, OK? You know, stuff that wasn’t so good for your health, like having one’s guts cut out while being away from home for months and such.

——————————————————-

At 11:25 AM, wobs said…

Just posted this on the Yahoo message board for Wimbledon:

The point is that on average, over the last 5 years, 20% less people watch the women’s final than watch the men’s. Also, as people have pointed out, the women play about for 60% less time.

The only time in recent years that the women’s match has drawn more viewers than the men’s was 2005. And guess what? Venus used it as an opportunity to demand equal prize money. 2005 was unusual, and not a reflection of how popular women’s tennis is.

Not only that, but because they only play 3 sets, they are more able to play in doubles matches, and so the top 10 womens players actually earn more than the men at Wimbledon, owing to more opportunities.

But it gets better.

Women such as Venus and Martina fully admit that they are fit enough to play 5 sets. So its not even about how much they feel they are working. AND, the difference in prize money was only 5%, so they only received a relatively small amount less than the men, so per hour, they were already earning more!

To conclude:
The women players were earning more, were working less, were less deserving of the money owing to less viewing figures, and are perfectly capable of doing the same work as the men and still they complained.

Equality? Think again.

——————————————————-

At 11:27 AM, Anonymous said…

I wonder what the equal opportunities commission make of it.
If i worked in a factory and was told that as a male i have to do more work than a woman to get equal pay, i would do my nut. Equal when it suits!!

I used to call my ex-wife ‘hippo-suits’. She was a hypocrite and equality was only an issue when it suited her.

There should no longer be any separate women and men events and sports. Mixed sports only. There is no separate ‘competition for female police officers, they are not told to police just the female population.

If women are good enough to do those kind of jobs, dealing with males, then they should compete with men in sports.

Oh is that hell freezing over.

——————————————————-

At 2:21 PM, FredXblog said…

Anon 3:05am- fuck off you stupid prick

MRA’s moderate comments to avoid spam, not out of cowardice

LOL- You really are a dick aren’t you

——————————————————-

At 4:56 PM, Captain Zarmband said…

Peter Fleming wouldn’t dare say anything else since he now earns his living as a commentator for the highly feminised BBC. He’s simply towing the mangina/BBC line for his own gain. I’ll bet he didn’t have the same opinion when he was playing.

Oh and anonymous 3.05:

I think it’s you that needs a history lesson and not the feminazi propaganda that’s in your thick skull. One day you may learn to think for yourself and then you’ll realise that you’ve been brainwashed. Now run along your womens study class is just starting without you.

Oh and Duncan: Great work mate.

——————————————————-

At 5:48 PM, darkbhudda said…

I agree with you frequently but in this case there is an actual reason for paying equally. The women’s matches actually generate higher TV ratings than the men’s do and thus more ad revenue, so the female players my play for less time, but they are more productive in an economic sense.

Higher individual ad revenue x less ads

does not automatically beat

lower individual ad revenue x more ads

You’d need the numbers to work it out. Interest in female tennis is more volatile than male tennis, based more on who most people tune in for particular players not for the sport in general.

Plus, every time I’ve switched channels at a decent hour, the female tennis is on. If it’s an indecent hour the male tennis is on. Rather unfair to claim they get higher ratings, when they are scheduled in higher rating periods.

Plus I’m sure they pick the highest rating female, whoever’s front page on the tabloids, tennis event and compare it to the highest rating male tennis event, rather than compare the overall average ratings.

But my main objection is they aren’t basing this travesty on ratings, which would still be bogus, but because the female tennis players have been whining about “equal pay for equal work” and have the backing of journalists.

——————————————————-

At 7:11 PM, Anonymous said…

spawn of Satan

God is a man.

Satan is a woman.

——————————————————-

At 8:04 PM, Duncan Idaho said…

Even if women’s tennis does get higher viewing figures, half of those viewers are just 13-year-old boys who just want to see women in short skirts and white knickers grunting and getting all sweaty.

That’s the only reason I tuned into women’s tennis when I was 13 anyway.

——————————————————-

At 9:57 PM, Anonymous said…

Anonymous said…

If anybody is a “mangina”, it’s YOU, Duncan. All you do is bitch on this blog. I see your comments are pre-moderated… further proof that you’re a dickless wonder. Oh, men have it sooooo bad…. NOT. I see some people need a history lesson.

Just one of MANY examples that proves how shitty your gender is/was:

One word: KARMA. Deal with it, spawn of Satan.

3:05 AM

Fuck YOU, you blood snot sucking cunt! What the fuck do you think you are doing now??

Your blood dripping pussy ass couldn’t pass muster in ANY competition with a man. Naturally your pile-of-shit gender can’t see that it was men who had to give you EVERYTHING; teach you everything; give you a fucking world to live in comfortably, and still stinky tuna cunts like you can’t grasp the fact that you are useless! What have YOU done but cause this society misery?

——————————————————-

At 2:30 AM, mfsob said…

Equal pay for LESS work!

Yeah, I gotta get me some of that!

——————————————————-

At 1:10 PM, Rick Dangerous said…

When you go into work on Monday, tell your boss that you want to work a 3-day week from now on, for a full-time wage. If your co-workers complain, simply tell them to “grow up and accept it!”

(I can’t take any responsibility for loss of employment resulting from this suggestion…)

Heh… notice how Anonymous Moron completely avoided the subject of the post! Maybe because she didn’t have an argument?

Anonymous Moron said:

Oh, men have it sooooo bad…. NOT. I see some people need a history lesson. Just one of MANY examples that proves how shitty your gender is/was: [snip]

And your comment shows how completely ignorant and self-pitying your gender is. Do you realise that the computer you’re using was invented, developed and programmed by men? I guess it’s easier to bash those that create, rather than create something yourself.

Oh, by the way, do you know of any feminist blogs that aren’t using pre-mod on their comments? Your dumb comment got published here – I doubt I could get a comment on any of their sites! What are they scared of, I wonder?…

——————————————————-

At 2:04 AM, Anonymous said…

The women’s matches actually generate higher TV ratings than the men’s do and thus more ad revenue, so the female players my play for less time, but they are more productive in an economic sense.

That may be true, but it’s because men want to see some tits and ass running around a court after a ball.

When the realize that most of the modern ones are lesbians and/or hopped up on so many steroids they have dicks, they won’t be so interested.

——————————————————-

At 6:18 AM, Phoenix said…

If women want to use the economic argument for tennis justifying higher women’s salaries, then they have some explaining to do for that Act that cut men’s school sports to even out with women’s. Title 9 or something?

——————————————————-

At 10:58 AM, ze german said…

Anon 8.58,

I am not Finnish but living in Finland.

Some buddies of mine have been talking about men’s movement.

I agree to your words, and though the laws here are not as bad as the US, the women here, in my opinion, are too masculinized – under the cover of strong independent – and in truth, two men in a relationship is one too much.

——————————————————-

At 2:27 PM, Paul Parmenter said…

Actually the bigeye reference posted by anonymous 3.05 above is quite useful. It’s a reminder of just how much has changed since ancient times, and just how much has stayed the same; and also of how easy it is to distort history when you try to apply a modern agenda to a world where such ideas simply had no place.

The article in bigeye is typically biased and seeks only to portray women in ancient Greece as victims, without considering or explaining just how limited their value was, particularly in a society of city states which was what Greece consisted of in those days. Physical hard work, brain power and the ability to defeat enemies in battle, were of overwhelming importance for the survival of the state. In such precarious and vulnerable societies, where it could all be swept away if they lost the next battle, the only things women were good for were menial work, producing babies and giving the men some recreation from their labours. Otherwise they were a dangerous liability. They had to be fed, clothed, housed and protected, none of which they could do themselves; and it took a huge investment by men to provide them with all that.

Educating women would have been a waste because they could never have done anything with an education. That would just have been another burden that men would have had to take on, and to no good purpose. There was no massive comfort zone like there is in modern societies, where women can use their education to obtain undemanding jobs devoid of responsibility in a bloated service sector awash with money, or just sponge off the state.

But ancient women did have the best comfort zone available in those times. They lived in houses they had not built, ate food they had not produced, and were physically protected from enemies without having to contribute to that protection. And if their menfolk were destroyed in battle, they just took up with the victors and lived off their backs instead.

Thus we see the similarities between ancient Greece and modern societies. Women still avoid physical work and any area of danger, still rely on men to support them and provide them with their needs and demands (except that the latter have multiplied over the last 2,500 years) and still refuse to accept any responsibility for their lives.

But we also see what has changed: women now have enormous power and a raft of rights enshrined in law. They can dictate the terms under which they will marry men, and divorce them as easily as snapping their fingers. They can control their own fertility and have children with or without a husband, and with or without his agreement, as they see fit. They have public health and educational systems geared to their needs and largely under their control. They can break any laws they wish and use their vagina pass to escape punishment. Today it is all about women’s rights without responsibility. A long, long way from ancient Greece, where the men were far too smart to give women such licence, because to do so would have been suicidal.

So we should thank anonymous 3.05 for the reference; but just remind ourselves that the world we live in today is in many ways unrelated to the world of the ancients. Which of course makes me question why anonymous 3.05 thought it a good idea to refer to it. Obviously the intention was the old idea of trying to lay a guilt trip on modern men, as if we were in any way responsible for the past and as if women today were in any kind of similar state to women in ancient Greece.

When feminists try that old trick on you, remember that it is just as likely that they are descended from oppressors and criminals and that you are descended from their victims, as the other way round. So throw that guilt right back where it came from. And remember just how big a burden on men women have proved themselves throughout history, and still do today.

——————————————————-

%d bloggers like this: