Equal pay at Wimbledon. Finally.

Wimbledon was the only grand slam tennis event not to pay men and women equally. Those days are over. Sweet.
On a somewhat (ok, not really) related note. I heart Paul Bettany SO bad.

and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

44 Comments

  1. ElleMariachi
    Posted February 22, 2007 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    Huh. I didn’t know they weren’t paid equally…but good to know that’s now the case.
    (BTW: I totally love Paul Bettany, especially after seeing him talk on Conan O’Brien. He admitted to becoming addicted to tennis while preparing for that movie, but now the only “fuzzy balls he plays with are his own”. Only he could get away with saying that :) )

  2. noname
    Posted February 22, 2007 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    So women are going to play 3 out of five set matches, now? And they are going to charge the same amount for the women’s final as for the men’s?

  3. noname
    Posted February 22, 2007 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    Ah, forget it. This isn’t worth it. This argument has already been made in previous threads. No need to do it again.

  4. Posted February 22, 2007 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    He hearts you too, but he just doesn’t know it yet. Remember: Gangster #1!

  5. Denise
    Posted February 22, 2007 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

    Stupid, stupid, stupid! It’s issues like this that make real feminists look like fools. Wimbledon is business. A whopping 85% of the revenue from Wimbledon comes from the male players. Last year viewership of the male finals was NINETY times higher than of the female finals. This means the men bring in much, much more money at Wimbldon. Sorry, people just same to enjoy watching the men more (Nielsen ratings says 48.6% of the viewership of the Male finals were women, meaning millions more women watched the Male finals than the women). Women being paid the same as the men is just WRONG in this case. Equality is supposed to mean FAIRNESS. The men bring in a lot more money and should be paid accordingly. It is situations like this that people use to discredit feminism and why so many women say “I’m not a feminist, but…”. If a woman is more valuable to a business she should be paid MORE… and vice versa. If a male car salesperson sells more cars than a female salesperson should she be paid the same??? What embarrassing nonsense this is!

  6. Posted February 22, 2007 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

    Homer: People can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. ‘Forfty’ percent of all people know that.
    She may have a point, though. I’ve seen many feminist membership cards burned in protest because Rafael Nadal couldn’t afford that one Canary Island he had his eye on.

  7. penny lane
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    You can lie with statistics, especially when pulling them out of your ass. In fact, viewership of tennis is highly cyclical depending on the stature of players in the final so if you want to pay by viewership it would need to be adjusted yearly.
    For example, in 2006 more viewers in the U.S. and Britain (the largest markets) watched the Davenport/Williams final than watched the Federer/Roddick final. In 2004 the numbers were roughly the same. Unfortunately putting your numbers in ALL CAPS does not make them true.

  8. Posted February 23, 2007 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    Friday Roundup

    Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) are stepping again into the campaign finance ring, this time with a bill to limit contributions to 527s. The jury in the Scooter Libby trial is still deliberating, now with a flip…

  9. Denise
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    Geez, Penny Lane, thanks for making my point for me. We hate men so much let’s just make things up. After all my statistics DID come out of my ASS, if you consider my ass to be Nielsen Ratings and DataPoint ViewerCom. I’m in the advertising business and we contract with both and the stats are at my computer “fingertips”. Your claims of 2006 and 2004 female Wimbledon final viewership superiority are just crap and entirely simply made up and are as wrong as your rather juvenile claim that the U.S. and “Britain” are “the largest markets”. [the USA is the THIRD largest TV market — behind China and India in total televisions, the UK is 14th. In total televisions tuned to Wimbledon the UK — probably because Wimbledon is local — came in 4th in televisions tuned to Wimbledon in the years you provided your made up data for: after China, India, and the USA.)
    I guess you caught me with bad numbers because I just briefly perused the numbers before posting. Last year’s male finals did NOT outdraw the female finals by “NINETY” times, it was actually by a multiple of 90.7. The 2004 finals had the men outdrawing the women by a multiple of 89.8.
    In total revenue stream in Pro Tennis (commercial time, product sales, sponsored products, etc.)female players bring in about 12.4% of revenue over the last 5 years the rest coming from those EVIL men.
    Next you are going to tell me that WNBA players should earn as much as NBA players and that their TV ratings and attendance are the same. EQUALITY is about OPPORTUNITY, it is not about cramming false dogma down the market’s throat. Female tennis players have the same opportunity as the men at the market, but the market is just no where as interested in them as they are the men. I’ll bet that infuriates you and you think there should be a law requiring people to always enjoy female sports as much as men. How can we demand fairness and equality in employment compensation when this politically correct nonsense is crammed down people’s throat. Any self-respecting female pro player should return the money and insist that they only be paid what they are worth.

  10. mamis62
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    Denise -
    You sound like a well-informed, logical person who uses publicly available information to back up your claims.
    So what the hell are you doing at this site?

  11. Denise
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    Mamis62:
    Thank you for your kind comment. This site does have it’s purpose, sadly mainly because of the youth, inexperience and sheltered backgrounds of the young women who run the site many of the issues they raise are silly and shrill and make feminists appear to be the shrill, hateful caricature those who oppose feminism paint us as.
    Feminism just asks America for the same promise it seems to fulfill for men: OPPORTUNITY. That’s all.
    In my younger days it was about “Give us a chance, we can do as good a job as men if you let us demonstrate it. We don’t want any special treatment, just treat us equally.” Now it has often become, “Give us an advantage over men. And give us LOTS of special treatment. Do NOT swear in front of us, do not tell an off-color joke and for God’s sake do NOT compete with us on a level playing field.”
    I work in a male dominated industry. Sure, sometimes they are profane and obnoxious and tell filthy jokes — but sometimes so do women (could you imagine if a man tried to claim a woman was creating a “hostile work environment” by telling a dirty joke?”. If someone — man or woman — makes me feel uncomfortable I act like an adult and either tell them to shut up or I leave the room.
    The greatest danger true feminism faces is marginalization by the sillyness of many of the claims made under the guise of feminism. Also, feminism’s biggest mistake is to try to claim that there are no innate differences between men and women. There are and there always will be. And there is nothing wrong with that. Viva la difference!
    A few months ago a friend and I stopped for a drink in a downtown bar. These drunken fool men started arguing and a fight broke out involving four men and the police were called. I heard a woman loudly exclaim “Oh gee!” and looked to see that two female police officers had arrived; one was about 5″4″ and 125 and the other about 5′ 6″ and 140. They yelled for the men to stop and the men battled on ignoring them. One of the women tried valiantly by jumping in and trying to separate the fighting idiot men and one of them stopped. Grabbed her by the arm and drug her towards the other officer who took out some mace as he approached. He laughed loudly, slapped her across the face, took her mace and maced her and then with her own handcuffs cuffed the two female police officers together. At this point some 55ish aged men in suits who were in the bar jumped and and rescued the female police officers and other men separated the fighting men. A female police sergeant came in with a very commanding presence and directed the men from the crowd to continue to hold the previously fighting men. She gave them plastic handcuffs and the idiots were cuffed by the men from the crowd. Then two male officers came in and took control.
    ANYONE regardless of sex should be able to be a police officer… ANYONE, as long as they can do the job. If a man is too small and weak HE should not be hired. There are women who are big enough and strong enough to be cops but all three of the female officers that night were way too small and weak and were an embarrassment and a danger to themselves and the public.
    This was a perfect example of the excesses of “feminism”. The same opportunity to be a police officer does NOT mean you have to hire women who CAN’T do the job, it means you have to give the same opportunity to women who CAN do the job.
    Now I realize that lots of you man-hater pretend feminists are going to write how evil I am and how evil it is that I told the truth about opportunity. Much of the silly-feminism you see here on this site is much more about the young women who run this site feeling unattractive to men and hateful of them.

  12. mamis62
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

    Denise -
    Will you marry me?
    Great anecdote. The thing that frustrates me about “silly-feminists”, as you call them, is that there’s no middle ground: you’re either Andrea Dworkin or you’re Michelle Malkin. I consider myself a feminist in the sense that I want a safe, respectful, equal-opportunity environment for women (and men) in the workplace and in society. But when I see absurd ideas like this Wimbledon thing and I complain about it…presto! I’m a woman-hating troll.
    To get back to the Wimbledon issue: the average MLS (USA men’s soccer) player makes $110K. The average NBA player makes $5 million. Why? Because Americans want to watch basketball, not soccer. I personally want to watch soccer, but I don’t fault others for their preferences, and I certainly don’t think MLS guys deserve more money due to “equality”.

  13. ElleMariachi
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    “In my younger days it was about “Give us a chance, we can do as good a job as men if you let us demonstrate it. We don’t want any special treatment, just treat us equally.” Now it has often become, “Give us an advantage over men. And give us LOTS of special treatment. Do NOT swear in front of us, do not tell an off-color joke and for God’s sake do NOT compete with us on a level playing field.”"
    Eh, I don’t know, I think this is a pretty huge generalization. I don’t think it’s that way at all. I went to an all-girls high school, and what did my teachers tell me? Never that we were to be “better” than men, but that we were to have the same opportunities as them. That being said, I don’t think women or feminists (at least, the ones that I know) are demanding a big advantage. I work/studied in the science field, which is still dominated by men, and do I see any of the female profs demanding more funding solely because of the fact that they have vaginas? Nope. Did I ever see anyone in my history of medicine class demanding that Rosalind Franklin get equal recognition for her photos of DNA, which led to the Watson and Crick delineation of its structure? Nope. If anything, they were tearing her down and saying that she barely deserves recognition at all, since “it would have been discovered anyway, with or without her photos”.
    I don’t really know where you are seeing women demanding anything “over” men, but I guess your mileage just varies on that one. Also, I swear more than my boyfriend and have told him jokes that have made him go, “Damn, that’s foul!” Guess I’m a silly feminist, just in a different way.

  14. Denise
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    ElleMariachi:
    I’m not quite sure what you are saying but what I’m trying to say is feminism should be about PEOPLE not about women. It should be about fairness and equal opportunity for everyone.
    I suppose it was supposed to mean something that you said you swear more and tell more dirty jokes than your boyfriend. But, my point was if you did that at work people would just laugh. If your boyfriend did it some woman would sue claiming he was “creating a hostile work environment”. I mean, c’mon… we are saying “treat us equally as adults with men we are just as capable and tough as them” and then we say “Oh my tender ears, your naught words and/or joke deeply hurt me and now you should pay me millions.”
    One of my most ardently feminist friends is director of Human Resources at a largish company and she one day said to me “I am a feminist everywhere but at work.” When I inquired into her meaning she said, “When all things are equal and I have to choose between a male and female candidate for a position I hire the man everytime.” I thought this was horrible and asked why she said, “Because no guy has ever sued the company because someone told a naughty joke or said a bad word.”
    Look, we are either equal to and as good as men or we aren’t. If we need all sorts of special protections and rules for us to work then we are just children.
    I mean come on — you have a boyfriend — and someday (don’t tell the people here or they’ll think horribly of you for surrendering to the “patriarchy”)you may have a son, don’t leave them vulnerable to bullshit lawsuits and trouble because weak women want special treatment.
    Are you familiar with this case that happened to Miller Brewing? In the late 90′s Seinfeld had a show in which he couldn’t remember the first name of a woman he was dating,all he could remember was it rhymed with a name of a part of female gential anatomy (it turned out her name was “Delores”, after prolonged and silly speculation about whether her name was “Mulva” or “Mabia”, etc.) Some middle managers were standing around an actual watercooler talking about the show when a 46 yr old female manager walked by and asked what they were laughing about and they became uncomfortable and refused to tell her. Even according to her later testimony she became insistent and pleading until finally one of the men, a co-worker of the same management status took a dictionary off of a desk and opened it to the page with “clitoris” on it and closed the dictionary and said, “If you want to know look at the such and such number word on page such and such”.
    She opened the book, laughed, and proceeded by the testimony of others to tell at least 7 other women — including her assistant — about the show and how funny it was.
    Four months later she is going through her fourth divorce and realizes that to keep her house she is going to have to tap majorly into her retirement account. She visits a law firm and claims the event made her “terribly uncomfortable” and that as a result of the man directing her to the dictionary she “couldn’t sleep” and “could no longer form normal relationships with men” and that it also created “a very hostile work environment”.
    Miller immediately dismissed the guy who directed her to the dictionary and offered her 36 months of psych. treatment and a year off with full pay. She turned it down and a jury later awarded her millions of dollars (I think it was 9 million dollars — the amount really isn’t important). She took the money and retired and (my favorite part (moved to Florida where she opened and still operates a “Gentleman’s” club – a strip joint).
    The man who was fired ALSO sued Miller and received a multi-million dollar award for “wrongful dismissal”.
    This is just nuts!
    Women are just as strong as men. And men are not the enemy, in fact, the enemy is weak little girls — like the young women who run this site — who are angry that they don’t feel accepted by men for their looks and therefore hand out this so-called “feminist” drivel and bile and give the world a false and cartoonish view of “feminism”.
    And, by the way… feminism does NOT mean socialism (though you’d never tell it by this site). Real women can also survive in a capitalist structure and we LOVE a system that rewards hard work! These silly young things on here posture themselves as strong women and then write post after post about what they are “entitled to” and what “the government” should give them. Get off your Daddy’s wallet and earn your own way! If you really want to end “the Patriarchy” then stop living off of it!

  15. EG
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

    Let’s see: “weak little girls,” “silly young things,” yep, that’s how feminists refer to other women. How “silly-feminist” of me to doubt you.
    You make an awful lot of assumptions about the women who run this site and the women who comment here–what on earth makes you think that they’ve had “sheltered” lives, or that they live on “Daddy’s wallet” (another lovely feminist moment–my mother did more to support me than my father, and she’s not the only one)?
    So tell me, if you take away the petty insults, what’s left of your rhetoric? The fact that you don’t like socialism? Well, you don’t have to. The fact is that the women who run this site are not hostile to socialism. “REAL women” support a variety of economic systems.
    Finally, no, I completely disagree with you. Feminism is about women. If feminism can’t be depended upon to be about women, what can? The fact is that men have subjugated women over the past several hundred years. As a result, we are currently in unequal positions. Thus, advocating for women is advocating for equality. Equal treatment is only fair if the subjects are in equal positions.
    Finally, “weak little girls” are the enemy? Funny. Of all the friends of mine who have been raped or molested, not one was victimized by a “weak little girl.”

  16. magpie_malone
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

    Denise,
    You may come to realize that you get a lot more respect for your opinions when you don’t launch into an opus of blame and resort to cliches such as “man-hating” and “unattractive.” It just makes it look as though you are too lazy to come up with a proper, well-thought-out, specific insult. Bring your A game!

  17. EG
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    Heh. Two “finally”s. Sometimes proofreading should be one’s friend.

  18. penny lane
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    Oh man–that bastion of feminist power Businessweek is calling your numbers bullshit! (from 2003, showing that women’s tennis is not wanting for viewers). Though your rants seem to indicate that you are living in an alternate reality so perhaps reality does not hold there:
    Tourwide attendance has risen in the past five years, to a record 4.5 million in 2002. With some $52 million in prize money, players are competing for $1 million more than last year — though that’s still about $25 million less than the men. After rising during the past few years, TV ratings are flattening but have still outranked the men in six of the past eight Grand Slam finals. And the WTA recently sealed a $40 million extension of its 1998 contract with Hollywood producer New Regency Enterprises Inc., which will continue to control international TV rights to the tour’s top 28 tournaments through 2007.

  19. Denise
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    Penny Lane:
    I’m pretty busy right now but had to point out the dishonesty of your attempt. The discussion regarding women’s tennis and their pay was solely about WIMBLEDON! Understand? I think you do. How dishonest to try to make a fallacious point about WIMBLEDON by quoting (or misquoting) “facts” about other tournaments and events. Why do you argue and therefore assert that women should be paid disproportionately to their worth ONLY when its unfair to men? Shouldn’t it just be wrong and never happen? Note that NONE of you “silly feminists” have dared to answer my original question which really brings this to the salient point: If a male car salesperson sells more cars than a female salesperson should she be paid the same???
    Any of you who thinks it is good that women are paid the same as men at Wimbledon think the female salesperson should be paid the same as the higher producing salesman. You reveal yourselves…

  20. Posted February 23, 2007 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    Just a point of clarification: The French Open still does not pay equal prize money to all participants. Only the winners receive the same amount of prize money.
    Also, I cannot speak to the accuracy of the statistics being thrown around, but I do know that if women players like Maria Sharapova, Venus and Serena Williams, Kim Clijsters, etc. decided not to show up to the Grand Slams–including Wimbledon, tournament organizers would be pretty upset because they would be losing a lot of revenue and getting significant pressure to remedy the situation from television stations.

  21. sojourner
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    Ok Denise so “Wimbledon is business� and as a business it decided it benefits *them* to pay women and men equal prize money. And they’re gonna do it. So I don’t get what you are whining about. Just go away.

  22. EG
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    Oh, heavens, sojourner! Denise isn’t whining! That’s only for silly little weak feminists! She’s a big girl!
    Nah. Whining sounds about right (oh no! somewhere, some women I don’t know are making more money! horrors!).

  23. penny lane
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

    Then in fairness in the tournaments where they women have had larger audiences, they should have greater pay.
    And I’d be curious where you get your info about Patricia Best and the Miller lawsuit. From available information from legal sources, Best never won a lawsuit against Miller. Jerold Mackenzie won $26.6 million against Miller because they did not believe the incident rose to the level of sexual harassment and they believed his claims that the incident was subterfuge for firing him for other reasons. The jury award was reduced by the judge and has since been overturned by an appeals court and, I believe, is pending further appeals. He also won $1.5 million in damages against Best. What the hell any of this has to do with feminism is a good question.
    Also, I LOVE the classic “incapable cop” anecdote. Can we also bring out the old saws of unshaven legs and lesbianism? Oh you silly girls today with your foul mouths!

  24. EG
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    Heh. Remember the TV show Kate and Allie. They once opened the show with this dialogue (I’m paraphrasing because it was many years ago):
    Allie: (pointing a female cop) Look at her!
    Kate: Yeah?
    Allie: Well? Look at her! She’s a woman! She’s so short! Does she make you feel safe?
    Kate: Does she have a gun?
    That pretty much sums it up for me. She’s got a gun? Excellent. That equalizes things. Either that, or put all male cops on desk duty once they pass their physical peak.

  25. Denise
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    EG & Penny Lane: OH GREAT! So when a female officer arrives at a scene where physical puts them at a deficiency they should just start shooting people??? Even YOU don’t believe that. And if even a silly-feminist was in real trouble being physically assaulted or raped they hope the cop that shows up is a big, strong man who can physically dominate.
    I don’t disagree with the point that male officers should be required to be in shape. But, problematically, an out of shape 55 yr old man can easily physically dominate an in shape 22 yr old average woman. Women should have the same opportunity to be police officers as men, as long as the requirements are stringent and EVERYONE (meaning the women, too) have to meet them.
    Big city cops call female officers “Flaggirls”. A reference road crews where men and women are paid the same and you see men doing hard, hot work shoveling asphalt and you find the women somewhere in the shade doing the “Flag” traffic work.

  26. Denise
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    EG & Penny Lane: OH GREAT! So when a female officer arrives at a scene where physical puts them at a deficiency they should just start shooting people??? Even YOU don’t believe that. And if even a silly-feminist was in real trouble being physically assaulted or raped they hope the cop that shows up is a big, strong man who can physically dominate.
    I don’t disagree with the point that male officers should be required to be in shape. But, problematically, an out of shape 55 yr old man can easily physically dominate an in shape 22 yr old average woman. Women should have the same opportunity to be police officers as men, as long as the requirements are stringent and EVERYONE (meaning the women, too) have to meet them.
    Big city cops call female officers “Flaggirls”. A reference to road crews where men and women are paid the same and you see men doing hard, hot work shoveling asphalt and you find the women somewhere in the shade doing the “Flag” traffic work.
    Neither feminism nor equality require this immature game where we are all supposed to agree to pretend that there is no difference between men and women. The best patrol officers — because of the frequent physical component — are MEN. Sorry. Does this mean that women shouldn’t have an equal opportunity to try to meet the same standards? NOPE. My college roommate and dear friend was a female and was 6′ 1″ and weighed 210 and was as strong as an ox. She made the NY police dept. when women rarely did and when the physical requirements hadn’t been lessened and lessened until tiny weak women could make it. Does this mean that women cannot be detectives? Nope. They can and should also be management, etc. But wait, I’m forgetting the dogma of this site. Here we are to pretend that there is NO difference physically between men and women; they are EXACTLY the same!

  27. Charity
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

    What I find most striking about this thread is how people like Denise find this site, or parts of it, utterly enraging enough to, frankly, actually go berserk. What is so threatening here that it deserves that kind of reaction? Of course, we know the answer to that question.
    Do other things going on in the world today bother you as much as this web site, enough perhaps that you would go so far as to call more deserving kinds of people “the enemy,” as you have called the women of Feministing? Do you voice your outrage on white supremacy web sites or child pornography web sites or the web sites of corrupt government officials or corporations, or contact your legislators with this degree of passion about issues you find more relevant to feminism than those you perceive this site as offering? Are you as enraged at those violations as you are at this site, enough to accuse the writers of topics they don’t actually write about, lifestyles they don’t actually possess and demands they don’t actually make, and enough to make wild and offensive generalizations about women’s agendas from some anecdotal evidence of one or two questionable sexual harassment lawsuits and one observation of women police officers?
    And for your trouble, you earned a pat on the head from a man cruising through, which I’m guessing is also the kind of validating response you get in your workplace and other settings when you align with the good old boys and their “everyone could be equal if they just worked hard enough” rhetoric, which actually means, “we will let you into our club if you prove your worth to us.” But don’t forget, it’s their club!! Amanda at Pandagon had an excellent post on that phenomenon a while back…
    Here’s what I think. You get really angry at women when you perceive them as ‘giving other women’ – namely, yourself – ‘a bad name.’ Which makes it harder for you to be accepted and taken seriously by men. Wouldn’t it be nice if your acceptance and evaluation by men was not contingent on the behavior of ALL women they happen to notice, if it were not contingent on somehow proving that we weren’t given any handouts, and proving we can “overcome” and grit our teeth through sexist garbage (like the kinds of remarks that you choose to “leave the room” in response to) in the spheres and structures that men have created and defined? Wouldn’t it be nice if that burden didn’t fall disproportionately on you, as a woman? If you seek to understand these disparities, if you choose to acknowledge them at all, you needn’t locate the blame in other women. See Twisty for your answer.

  28. Denise
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    Charity:
    See, because men — those evil bastards — never are uncomfortable with anything. Are NEVER discriminated against because of their appearance (too short, too fat, not athletic enough?)or because they didn’t go to the right school, etc.
    Most of you on here embarrass me because YOU argue that what you seek should be GIVEN to you, that you should NOT have to earn it. Your failures are ONLY because of the “patriarchy” (I wonder how many men even know what the word and alleged concept mean?) and not possibly resulting from your anger and hatred of the “unfair” world.
    In fact your constant railing against things being “unfair” remind me of preteen children whining that things are “not fair”.
    But, you are right. Women don’t stand a chance. There are none in high political office (and isn’t it a bitch that to be President we just might have to EARN it?) and there are no multi-millionaire women dominating media (I think I learned that on Oprah).
    Stop blaming your failures on the “patriarchy” and look in the mirror. It is also hilarious that you attach ME with the same techniques you claim men unfairly attack feminism with (whining?).
    A site like this is damaging to feminish because it fits the stereotype. A handful of very middle class privileged girls angry that they are not physically partricularly attractive. When they get a boyfriend the proclaim him on here even to the point of burdening us with pictures of them (and they are also stereotypically unattractive effeminate men, boy that sure helps the cause!).
    All of the founders of this site are still living off the support of daddy and clearly truly are looking for a man who finds them attractive and desirable, especially if the man was actually masculine

  29. magpie_malone
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

    Reading this thread reminds me of listening to my dad when he gets drunk, except he rants about minorities and immigrants (he’s recently added Muslims to his repertoire) instead of women. How they’re always asking for breaks, the government cares more about pandering to them instead of giving a chance to the hardworking people, etc. You’re almost making me feel nostalgic, Denise.
    Anyway, to get back to the point of this post — mmmmmm, Paul Bettany. He makes a lovely Chaucer.

  30. manda
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

    Denise, for someone so upset by feminist stereotypes, you just stepped into two giant anti-feminist ones.
    1.) If you can’t argue against someone’s opinion, insult their appearance:
    “A handful of very middle class privileged girls angry that they are not physically partricularly attractive.”
    2.) Claim that said feminist(s) are just angry because they can’t find a man:
    “All of the founders of this site… are looking for a man who finds them attractive and desirable, especially if the man was actually masculine”
    Now that you’ve shown yourself in such an intelligent light you can head on back to Save the Males. Thanks for stopping by.

  31. sojourner
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    “A handful of very middle class privileged girls angry that they are not physically particularly attractive.”
    It’s funny you should say that because in the past they had been attacked for being too attractive (I remember at least one case).

  32. noname
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

    Denise and Penny Lane – Do you have links to your stats?
    Denise – Go to the “Meet the Ladies” links before you call the women of Feministing unattractive.

  33. Dopey
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

    It’s a troll.

  34. Dopey
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

    It’s a troll.

  35. EG
    Posted February 24, 2007 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

    Heh. Like those balloons you get when a baby is born, only instead of “It’s a boy!” and “It’s a girl!” these would say “It’s a troll!”

  36. Dopey
    Posted February 24, 2007 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

    :D

  37. Denise
    Posted February 24, 2007 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

    Sojouner:
    NICE TRY! None of these women from this site were accused of being too attractive. One was accused actually of being very insecure about her appearance. So insecure that she rather embarrassingly attended a meeting with that sex abuser/rapist Bill Clinton wearing a deliberately tight and revealing shirt and then when posing with him for a picture really showed her lack of confidence in her appearance by presenting her breasts for the purpose of making them obvious.
    This site is destructive to feminism because it puts every negative stereotype of feminism on display. The site is run by spoiled middle class girls who are supported by their daddies and the girls display their anger regarding their lack of physical unattractiveness by striking out nonsensically at men except during the rare times when they have boyfriends when they descend into slutty swooning and boy-worship. As if the stereotype of them has to be emphasized they then burden us with pics of these “men” and they are always unnattractive very effeminate types.
    Girls, improve your confidence by relying on something besides appearance as the end all be all of human existence. Look for men who are interested in your mind and personality. And for God’s sake stop just excepting just any guy because you are desperate. Isn’t it time we end the stereotypical pattern of feminists being ugly and quick to spread their legs for any man? Keep in mind that parts of “feminism” were in fact sold to women by men who sought quick and easy sex. In the early days men convinced women that to be independent you had to spread your legs whenever a man instructed you too and then they sold abortion as a feminist act so that if feminists tendency to have sex easily and with anyone resulted in pregnancy it was easy to get the woman to end the problem (for them). It’s time true feminism moved past it’s own crotch.

  38. Denise
    Posted February 24, 2007 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

    TROLL
    The definition of TROLL:
    “Troll” is what you call someone when you have lost an internet argument to them. “Troll” is a “loser marker” (you can tell who is admitting they have lost an internet argument because all they can do is call the other a “troll”).
    A “troll” is what you call someone online when they have completely outmatched you in the engaged discourse and they possess superior facts and presentations skills. A smart person will avoid using the loser’s term “troll” because it is just an indication that the user has lost the argument.

  39. donna darko
    Posted February 24, 2007 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

    Don’t feed the troll, folks. :-)

  40. EG
    Posted February 24, 2007 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

    Aw, Ma, but she’s so cute, and she keeps following us! What if she doesn’t have anywhere else to go?

  41. donna darko
    Posted February 24, 2007 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

    He is not so cute.

  42. ElleMariachi
    Posted February 24, 2007 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

    Mmmm…Bill Clinton. Something about the Rhodes scholar/southern accent thing just does it for me. I’d wear a tight shirt to meet President Clinton. I’m sure he’s a boob man, right? ;)
    (I kid, I kid…)
    I used to play with trolls when I was a little kid. One of them had a mohawk and was called a “rock n’ roll troll”. I miss it.

  43. paleblue
    Posted February 24, 2007 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

    I love it when a person ends a mean, nasty rant with a punctuation error, especially when it seems that the person was sure the last line would resonate.
    Denise: that’s “its own crotch,” not “it’s own crotch.” Now, shhh, Denise. I’m trying to get my beauty sleep, so I can become pretty enough to quit being a feminist.

  44. Denise
    Posted February 25, 2007 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    Paleblue:
    I LOVE when a person cannot speak to or defeat your argument so they resort to attacking punctuation and typos in a forum in which the quick unedited retort is common.
    WHAT is REALLY funny is when you seek to attack me by attacking a typo and actually miss others while committing your own by using a completely unnecessary and improper comma in your last sentence.
    You can’t defeat my positions and you can’t even properly correct my punctuation.
    Oh, and as far as Clinton the sex abuser/rapist goes: He WAS in the Rhodes scholar program but never completed it when he was removed for “poor grades and incomplete work and attendance”.
    This site’s founders are apparently the same as most of their readers. They are angry feminists because they are very mad that boys like the pretty girls better. Sorry, but that really isn’t what feminism is about.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

206 queries. 1.459 seconds