What is equality to you?

[altus 540]

Yes I read all about it - it was the wrong decision by the umpire but not an affront to women’s rights.

How was it not. It was about a woman being penalised for removing her top when men who removed theirs were not.

[Guest makapaka]

How was it not. It was about a woman being penalised for removing her top when men who removed theirs were not.

 

 

No it's about a women being penalised for removing her top - probably wrongly by the umpire.

[leviathan13 350]

Did you actually look at the article at all?

 

You've missed out this bit:

 

The WTA confirmed on Wednesday that there is no such ruling among their regulations that prevents players from taking off their top in the circumstances that Cornet found herself in, and welcomed the apology from the USTA and law change that has been swiftly made.

 

“The code violation that the USTA handed to Alize Cornet during her first round match at the US Open was unfair and it was not based on a WTA rule, as the WTA has no rule against a change of attire on court,” the WTA said in a statement.

 

“The WTA has always been and always will be a pioneer for women and women’s sports. This code violation came under the Grand Slam rules and we are pleased to see the USTA has now changed this policy. Alize did nothing wrong.”

 

Earlier in the day, the USTA said: “All players can change their shirts when sitting in the player chair. We regret that a code violation was assessed to Ms Cornet yesterday. We have clarified the policy to ensure this will not happen moving forward. Fortunately, she was only assessed a warning with no further penalty or fine.”

[Cyclone 10]

No it's about a women being penalised for removing her top - probably wrongly by the umpire.

 

If you carefully ignore the fact that men do the same regularly and aren't penalised...

When rules aren't equally applied to men and women, or women are penalised for behaviour that is allowed in men, that's pretty much the definition of sexist.

 

---------- Post added 12-09-2018 at 13:10 ----------

 

None of it makes any sense, that's the point!

 

The reason I use a hierarchy to explain it is because, listening to the different groups involved, that's pretty much how they explain it.

 

If you listen to Owen Jones the LGBTQ+ community are the most oppressed. If you look at #metoo, women are oppressed. If you listen to BLM, black people are the most oppressed.

 

In the west, it seems to be a competition, and this is why I believe it is a hierarchy because if you then start adding the other textures to each oppressed group, it changes their 'ranking'. A white gay man is oppressed because he's gay. But, a black gay man is more oppressed because he's gay AND black, so suffers double the oppression.

 

'Intersectional' is a nonsense term created to try and say that everyone who isn't a white, heterosexual male is oppressed and all of their oppression matters. But one of those groups claims to suffer more and the rest jump on them and the competition begins. It's only blurry because no one really knows which oppression comes where, but a hierarchy of some kind exists.

 

The problem is that you don't understand what an intersection is, so there's no chance of you understanding what intersectionality means, and that's why you want to change it to be a hierarchy, because that IS something you understand. That isn't what intersection means though.

[Guest makapaka]

If you carefully ignore the fact that men do the same regularly and aren't penalised...

When rules aren't equally applied to men and women, or women are penalised for behaviour that is allowed in men, that's pretty much the definition of sexist.

 

---------- Post added 12-09-2018 at 13:10 ----------

 

 

 

Also if you carefully ignore the fact that women aren't regularly penalised either.

 

The scenario people have created is one where a man at one end of the court does it without question, and the woman at the other end does it and is penalised.

 

This didn't happen.

 

An umpire misinterpreted the rules and penalised the player - someone decided to put a sexism spin on it - probably thinking they were doing it for the right reasons - but actually just creating a false interpretation of the events.

 

i.e. That multi-millionaire female tennis players are being openly sexually discriminated against on a tennis court whilst the multi-millionaire male tennis players do as they wish.

[leviathan13 350]

If you carefully ignore the fact that men do the same regularly and aren't penalised...

When rules aren't equally applied to men and women, or women are penalised for behaviour that is allowed in men, that's pretty much the definition of sexist.

 

---------- Post added 12-09-2018 at 13:10 ----------

 

 

The problem is that you don't understand what an intersection is, so there's no chance of you understanding what intersectionality means, and that's why you want to change it to be a hierarchy, because that IS something you understand. That isn't what intersection means though.

 

Intersectionality is a tool used to identify someone's oppression... what those people then do is use it as a way to evidence that they are more oppressed than someone else.

 

So, you could have an 'intersectional feminist' who is black and gay, and another 'intersectional feminist' who is white and trans queer and all that would really happen is argument about who is the most oppressed. I haven't created a hierarchy, they've done it themselves using 'intersectionality' as a catalyst.

[Cyclone 10]

Right, so intersectionality isn't about a hierarchy, but once you've identified all the possible intersections then you could try to argue which is worse, but as you've pointed out, it's impossible to say really, and probably varies greatly depending on the situation.

[leviathan13 350]

Right, so intersectionality isn't about a hierarchy, but once you've identified all the possible intersections then you could try to argue which is worse, but as you've pointed out, it's impossible to say really, and probably varies greatly depending on the situation.

 

But it now is, thanks to the intersectional in-fighting as to who is the most oppressed.

 

---------- Post added 13-09-2018 at 22:08 ----------

 

If you carefully ignore the fact that men do the same regularly and aren't penalised...

When rules aren't equally applied to men and women, or women are penalised for behaviour that is allowed in men, that's pretty much the definition of sexist.

 

---------- Post added 12-09-2018 at 13:10 ----------

 

 

The problem is that you don't understand what an intersection is, so there's no chance of you understanding what intersectionality means, and that's why you want to change it to be a hierarchy, because that IS something you understand. That isn't what intersection means though.

 

Interesting video i came across recently...

 

 

Might just answer a few of your concerns...

[Baron99 811]

And now some black actors aren't black enough to play roles & satisfy some in the black community?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/entertainment-arts-45461884

 

Can we say black anymore; Afro-Carribean; Afro-American or is it people of colour?

 

Very soon we'll all have to continously wear barges clearly defining ourselves, so that we are not offended, should we meet a stranger.

[Mister M 1,628]

And now some black actors aren't black enough to play roles & satisfy some in the black community?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/entertainment-arts-45461884

 

Can we say black anymore; Afro-Carribean; Afro-American or is it people of colour?

 

Very soon we'll all have to continously wear barges clearly defining ourselves, so that we are not offended, should we meet a stranger.

 

Bet that'd be a bit uncomfortable

[Marsaud 10]

Bet that'd be a bit uncomfortable

 

Could be onion barges.

 

They’d be ok:)

[Guest makapaka]

Laugh - but he’s got a point - it’s crazy.