Misogyny and other gender issues.
-
Well first para has me hooked.I'm still great and you still love it. -
Yossarian wrote:
Aye - read something similar recently on ArsTechnica about the mess that is the current peer review environment and paid-for papers. Whole thing stinks something rotten and nowt can be read into any of that shit other than had money got published.
-
-
Why.
I mean these are the least mysterious people. -
Perhaps someone drunkenly ordered a bunch of fedoras, and they needed to get rid.
-
If Gary Linekar's on a mil a year, Clare Balding's good for it too, right?"I didn't get it. BUUUUUUUUUUUT, you fucking do your thing." - Roujin
Ninty Code: SW-7904-0771-0996 -
Gotta give Balding her props, I'm not a fan as such but she sure does put work in, over several sports, and seems a genuinely good sort. I saw her on a plane once too. She's definitely worth a Linekar if you ask me.
-
ALL WOMEN ARE FUCKING MENTAL. I'm sorry but they are. Fucking mentals.
-
No way is Balding worth 1.7m a year. But then neither is Linekar.
They should be on the same amount but not both that high.Live= sgt pantyfire PSN= pantyfire -
I'd say that Balding is more important to the Beeb than Linekar.
Say if, Sue Barker is taken ill, you can drop Clare straight in for her.
Conversely, on the beeb, if some bint's* needed to spuff on about horses, no one can replace her easily.
You can also imagine her easily presenting non-sports events.
If Linekar took time off MotD though, no one would give a fuck.
In fact, many would be relieved.
I'd even go as far as to say that Clare could sit in on MotD in his place, and you know... she'd do a good job...
* Ahem."I didn't get it. BUUUUUUUUUUUT, you fucking do your thing." - Roujin
Ninty Code: SW-7904-0771-0996 -
It's to do with how much they have to pay them to stop them going to Sky or someone else.
Lineker's worth maybe 2m to Sky, so the BBC have to pay him 1.7m to keep him, assuming he'd prefer to stay. If Sky offered 3m they'd let him go. Now everyone knows Lineker earns much more than a lot of other presenters, there'll be pressure on the BBC to reduce his pay, giving Sky a better chance of getting him.
At the same time, Sky presumably don't think Clare Balding would add as much value to their sports coverage, so the BBC don't need to pay her as much. Sky wouldn't either.
Not to say that the gender pay gap isn't an issue, but it's not specifically a BBC issue. The male presenters are deemed to have a higher market value in general - so why is that? -
Ooh, I know this: it's because of misogyny and other gender issues.
-
Perhaps the BBC could do a documentary. (And underpay a woman to present it.)
-
Men are still the wildcard crazy types that crack 'hilarious' jokes and the woman has to sit there, smile and keep the whole thing on track.
-
Lineker's a bad example in all this anyway - top flight football involves obscene amounts of money all round.
-
Alan Shearers wage is the most appealing of those I've seen. £450,000 for that?
-
-
I read 'Down & Dirty Pictures' at least a decade ago and it was full of horror stories and anecdotes about Weinstein's general awfulness whilst at Miramax, so it seems a bit rich to suddenly hear all these stories about what a monster he was and how no one in Hollywood really knew. It's clear that as long as he brought in the money and the awards people were quite happy not to delve too deep into the rumours.
Given all the long standing myths of casting couches, debauchery and general coked up shagging that goes with the territory of working in Hollywood I'm surprised more people haven't been dragged into it (Bryan Singer must be getting worried) and even more surprised that people in the media are acting surprised - have they not read Hollywood Babylon? I just assumed this type of thing went with the territory of 'getting into the movies' (not to excuse Weinstein).
If you're working in the paper clip trade then your boss answering the door in just a dressing gown and proceeding to wank off into a flowerpot might be more unexpected, but surely Tinseltown was built on this kind of sleaziness? -
Aye, though we're long past tradition being an excuse.
Do bookies take probably-sex-pest wagers? -
Don't know, but the way they treat their paper clips is shocking. -
Half of Hollywood defends roman Polanski, so it's no surprise that sexual assault is rife there. The Catholic church should make a movie about Hollywood.
But more seriously, this is typical of places and industries with a high concentration of power. None of it should be surprising, but none of it should be taken for granted either. Name names, and clean it up."Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." ― Terry Pratchett -
LarryDavid wrote:...and even more surprised that people in the media are acting surprised - have they not read Hollywood Babylon? I just assumed this type of thing went with the territory of 'getting into the movies' (not to excuse Weinstein).
Certainly.
But I'd say, in some way, the media was surprised. The people who broke the story had probably been tracking it for years. The perceived "shock" is very likely a function of the power that he has to cover up the whole thing.
And it is indeed a shock, that a supremely wealthy white American has actually been hauled in for any crime. And especially for what so far looks like a litany of relatively stupid, petty crimes.
That's unless there's some weight to some of the more serious allegations.
If he suffers say, the same fate as Max Clifford, and actually serves a proper jail sentence, before he begins old age, I will be fucking surprised."I didn't get it. BUUUUUUUUUUUT, you fucking do your thing." - Roujin
Ninty Code: SW-7904-0771-0996 -
dynamiteReady wrote:
Certainly. But I'd say, in some way, the media was surprised. The people who broke the story had probably been tracking it for years. The perceived "shock" is very likely a function of the power that he has to cover up the whole thing. And it is indeed a shock, that a supremely wealthy white American has actually been hauled in for any crime. And especially for what so far looks like a litany of relatively stupid, petty crimes. That's unless there's some weight to some of the more serious allegations. If he suffers say, the same fate as Max Clifford, and actually serves a proper jail sentence, before he begins old age, I will be fucking surprised.LarryDavid wrote:...and even more surprised that people in the media are acting surprised - have they not read Hollywood Babylon? I just assumed this type of thing went with the territory of 'getting into the movies' (not to excuse Weinstein).
Sorry, I know I'm being that guy, but really, even with the word relatively inserted in there, I don't think there's anything he's been accused of that I'd call petty. -
Weinstein is an abusive douche, but if there were willing participants who'd swallow anything to get ahead, then that is a difficult situation to be in for those with morals.
-
Tbh most people are sycophants when it comes to people with money and/or power.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions2,715
- Games1,879
- Off topic836