Fashionistas you have arrived 3-25-03 - 10-3-03

[ABBAKiss]

You know, Britney seems to be putting on a few as well. And she also went brunette, though far more natural than XTina's channelling of my girl Angelina. Britney also looks like caca.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
While in the real world, I think people should not be paid based on gender, here is one area where there should be a difference. The men play best of five, the women play best of three. The men play more tennis so their higher pay is justified. I'm surprised that the Australian and US Open's give the same prize money for less work.

Women's games seem to last longer -- because there tends to be more volleying. I'm not sure if each game is so much longer that a 3 set match is as long as a 5 set match, but really I find the games in which serves are only rarely returned boring. Volleying is more fun to watch. Thus, the three sets deserve as much pay.

f(maybe they should enclose the players in some kind of plastic suits and measure the calories expended, and pay accordingly)b

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
It seems to me the All-England Club eliminated the wrong tradition.

http://espn.go.com/tennis/news/2003/0429/1546283.html

Spree: no more bowing/curtsying, but men still earn more than women.

Is it still true that the men outdraw the women in attendance? Because it doesn't seem like it is. And if it's not, this makes roughly, zero sense. I would rather watch the women play tennis than the men any day.

TM

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Is it still true that the men outdraw the women in attendance? Because it doesn't seem like it is. And if it's not, this makes roughly, zero sense. I would rather watch the women play tennis than the men any day.

TM

I have no cite, but I recall a few years ago stories on how women were outdrawing the men.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by leagleaze
You also could not leave a puppy loose in your home. Puppies get into a lot of mischief. They chew wires, they eat chemicals, they pee on your floor. They are basically like young children wandering around getting in trouble. (Though I don't know if young children pee on floors.) So the puppy would need to be in a crate.

With regard to young children peeing on floors, yes, it does happen occasionally, particularly the male of the species.

Does this mean I can put the spooky jr. in a crate, too? Cool!

We try to leave papers on the floor, and the kid still can't hit 'em.

spookyfish

[SlaveNoMore]

evenodds
I just saw this new shot of [Xtina], and I think she's just a fattie:

NO FUCKING WAY.

Is that really her? Is that recent or when she was 13?

Jesus, she looks like some pop star reject from Polish TV.

not7y(hurl)S

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
While in the real world, I think people should not be paid based on gender, here is one area where there should be a difference. The men play best of five, the women play best of three. The men play more tennis so their higher pay is justified. I'm surprised that the Australian and US Open's give the same prize money for less work.

What if Hewitt defeats Sampras in straight sets, and Venus and Serena play a five, I mean three set nail-biter?

You might say, yeah, but overall, the men play more tennis.

But what if that happens in a year where the men's finals winner defeated everybody in straight sets, and the women's finals winner played five, er, three sets with a tiebreak for every match in the tournament?

Should the prize money be adjusted then?

The tennis players are paid for winning, whether they won easily or not.

Furthermore, your argument is based on the premise that compensation for athletes is based on the difficulty or volume of their work, rather than the market value of their services or the results they achieve. I'm sure somebody who followed other sports could come up with a load of examples, within the same sport and among players of the same gender, that disprove this notion. All I can think of right now is Cal Ripken vs. Reggie Jackson.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
While in the real world, I think people should not be paid based on gender, here is one area where there should be a difference. The men play best of five, the women play best of three. The men play more tennis so their higher pay is justified. I'm surprised that the Australian and US Open's give the same prize money for less work.

People don't get paid based on how hard they work. I work a lot harder than Gisele Bundchen, but she makes a lot more than I do. They get paid for what they can sell their work for. Since the women tennis players sell more advertising (don't they) and attract more viewers, they should get more.

I agree with your sentiment, and I think people like Lisa Leslie and all those women who work just as hard as male NBA players and other male athletes would like to live in your world where people get compensated for how hard they work. But fair's fair. If male NBA players make more because they sell a better product, shouldn't female tennis players?

[leagleaze]

How cute is this?

[evenodds]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
NO FUCKING WAY.

Is that really her? Is that recent or when she was 13?

Jesus, she looks like some pop star reject from Polish TV.

not7y(hurl)S

She looks awful. It's her from the GLAAD awards performance last weekend. She could look better in a better outfit, but clearly she either fired her stylist, or pissed em off and should apologize immediately.

[purse junkie]

Originally posted by evenodds
I just saw this new shot of her, and I think she's just a fattie:

Even(gotta love yahoo's most-emailed content email)Odds

More disturbing than the likelihood she's simply been hitting the Cheetos is that she seems to have utterly lost her eyebrows.

She makes up her face like a colorblind clown, but she doesn't think to use a simple eyebrow pencil? WTF?

p(darken your hair, darken your brows--or at least forbid your brow person from plucking them off completely)j

[SlaveNoMore]

leagleaze
How cute is this?

So I can score with my left foot and still kick the dog with my right. Nice.

not7yS

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by evenodds
She looks awful. It's her from the GLAAD awards performance last weekend. She could look better in a better outfit, but clearly she either fired her stylist, or pissed em off and should apologize immediately.

Or she said "make me look like Cyndi Lauper, but not as cute."

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
What if Hewitt defeats Sampras in straight sets, and Venus and Serena play a five set nail-biter?

You might say, yeah, but overall, the men play more tennis.

But what if that happens in a year where the men's finals winner defeated everybody in straight sets, and the women's finals winner played five sets with a tiebreak for every match in the tournament?

Should the prize money be adjusted then?

The tennis players are paid for winning, whether they won easily or not.

Furthermore, your argument is based on the premise that compensation for athletes is based on the difficulty or volume of their work, rather than the market value of their services or the results they achieve. I'm sure somebody who followed other sports could come up with a load of examples, within the same sport and among players of the same gender, that disprove this notion. All I can think of right now is Cal Ripken vs. Reggie Jackson.

Well, first, Serena and Venus will not play five sets (excluding some godawful endless 3rd set tiebreaker scenario) because they play best of three, not best of five.

I think we can agree that in terms of games played, on average, men play more. This should also translate into longer matches in terms of time, which means more commercials, which leads to more revenue generated.

If, and it's a big if, commercial time for men's and women's matches is the same, it means the men are bringing in more money, regardless of the number of tickets sold.

Sure, we all can come up with specific examples where the women's matches would be longer, but to my knowledge there has never been a tournament where the women were on the court longer then the men.

The bottom line is that bringing in the most money (probably through TV), should determine of who gets paid what prize money.

I have nothing to go on here except that men are actually on the court longer. If it turns out that women are bringing in the same anount of money as the men, but being paid less, I will join you in being PO'd.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So I can score with my left foot and still kick the dog with my right. Nice.

not7yS

You've just been upgraded to the ninth circle of hell.

spooky(Satan's errand boy)fish