|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jul 12, 2018 10:26:59 GMT -5
I've been wondering when they were going to do this, and I'm really excited to see it.
|
|
Dat Dude
Dennis Stamp
Wait, what?
Posts: 4,785
|
Post by Dat Dude on Jul 12, 2018 11:14:59 GMT -5
I've always wanted a whole show where every match is won by a blonde Sadly, that’s less “corrupt a wish” and more like reality ☹️
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2018 14:50:12 GMT -5
I'm glad. Better sooner than later.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,020
|
Post by Legion on Jul 12, 2018 15:30:25 GMT -5
The truth is I don't care. WWE can pay them, not pay them. However their pay structure works, is their problem and not my business. But I like the irony of people thinking 100% that the women should have been paid for GRR. But the idea of the men being paid for the same situation is somehow ridiculous. Seem like you do care and comparing the men and women are not the same issues and aren’t comparable. The Women COULD NOT compete under any circumstance I don’t see why people don’t get that. They were paid as a form of good will and the fact that If it were anywhere else they would have wrestled and gotten paid to do so I kinda get what he is saying - if WWE decides to do an all female PPV or event or whatever, and the men then CAN NOT wrestle and lose money they could have got, then it IS the same situation if you strip the morals out.
|
|
|
Post by Final Countdown Jones on Jul 12, 2018 16:41:35 GMT -5
Seem like you do care and comparing the men and women are not the same issues and aren’t comparable. The Women COULD NOT compete under any circumstance I don’t see why people don’t get that. They were paid as a form of good will and the fact that If it were anywhere else they would have wrestled and gotten paid to do so I kinda get what he is saying - if WWE decides to do an all female PPV or event or whatever, and the men then CAN NOT wrestle and lose money they could have got, then it IS the same situation if you strip the morals out. No it's not because the men would presumably not have pre-existing shows canceled to make room for the all-woman PPV, while GRR bumped a bunch of house shows off the schedule. And not just house shows on that date, but due to the travel and time involvement, house shows for several days out in both directions. More than just not getting paid for the day, they had days they were supposed to work get canceled on them, all due to a really shitty political situation. The men could easily run house shows in the space around the womens' PPV even if they don't book a men-only house show on the Sunday itself. It's not the same situation on the fundamentals of what actually happened just because you switch around the genders.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 12, 2018 16:44:22 GMT -5
They should have a female announce team. I suggest Renee and her special guest AJ Lee.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,020
|
Post by Legion on Jul 12, 2018 17:10:26 GMT -5
I kinda get what he is saying - if WWE decides to do an all female PPV or event or whatever, and the men then CAN NOT wrestle and lose money they could have got, then it IS the same situation if you strip the morals out. No it's not because the men would presumably not have pre-existing shows canceled to make room for the all-woman PPV, while GRR bumped a bunch of house shows off the schedule. And not just house shows on that date, but due to the travel and time involvement, house shows for several days out in both directions. More than just not getting paid for the day, they had days they were supposed to work get canceled on them, all due to a really shitty political situation. The men could easily run house shows in the space around the womens' PPV even if they don't book a men-only house show on the Sunday itself. It's not the same situation on the fundamentals of what actually happened just because you switch around the genders. And if they do, it would be different, but if they dont, and they cancel their shows, or they do this as an extra date for the female workers, but only allow them to earn that extra pay day, then it is. At a purely money level, if the male stars are unable to earn a pay day the women are, then the situation becomes the same, even if the context is radically different.
|
|
clifford
King Koopa
Shingo Takagi stan
Posts: 10,686
|
Post by clifford on Jul 12, 2018 17:15:13 GMT -5
Jesus who gives a shit if the guys are down one pay day, they already make more than the women anyway, and not one male wrestler would be against an all female PPV.
|
|
|
Post by Final Countdown Jones on Jul 12, 2018 17:33:51 GMT -5
No it's not because the men would presumably not have pre-existing shows canceled to make room for the all-woman PPV, while GRR bumped a bunch of house shows off the schedule. And not just house shows on that date, but due to the travel and time involvement, house shows for several days out in both directions. More than just not getting paid for the day, they had days they were supposed to work get canceled on them, all due to a really shitty political situation. The men could easily run house shows in the space around the womens' PPV even if they don't book a men-only house show on the Sunday itself. It's not the same situation on the fundamentals of what actually happened just because you switch around the genders. And if they do, it would be different, but if they dont, and they cancel their shows, or they do this as an extra date for the female workers, but only allow them to earn that extra pay day, then it is. At a purely money level, if the male stars are unable to earn a pay day the women are, then the situation becomes the same, even if the context is radically different. But this isn't about purely money and context is literally everything here in saying the situation isn't the same. To ignore the context of why WWE gave the women a payday and say "oh nope it's the same, one gender can't get booked" is really disingenuous. So I'm going to paint this as clear as possible: the women were deprived of a planned and booked payday due to a change of plans, so the company gave them a payday to make up for that. Not for not working one show. For having the shows they did have canceled. To try and compare the situations is at its most generous, still dishonest.
|
|
segaz
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,381
|
Post by segaz on Jul 12, 2018 18:37:17 GMT -5
Just as long as people don't demand it take place in Saudi Arabia, or for the government to declare war if one more commercial is shown over the normal ppvs
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on Jul 12, 2018 20:55:09 GMT -5
Jesus who gives a shit if the guys are down one pay day, they already make more than the women anyway, and not one male wrestler would be against an all female PPV. Besides that i'm sure the guys wouldn't mind kicking back and watching this since besides the MYC they haven't gotten much like this on the main stage as i'm sure WWE will put all the glitz and glamour to it
Also for some they would love to be able to be with their families for an extra day
Once again the women were forced into days off they would have worked while the men will either work or they won't which won't kill them nor will they complain as they will either watch the show at the arena or with their families
|
|
|
Post by theironyuppie on Jul 13, 2018 0:31:17 GMT -5
They should have a female announce team. I suggest Renee and her special guest AJ Lee. Could always add Beth Phoenix.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,020
|
Post by Legion on Jul 13, 2018 1:50:32 GMT -5
And if they do, it would be different, but if they dont, and they cancel their shows, or they do this as an extra date for the female workers, but only allow them to earn that extra pay day, then it is. At a purely money level, if the male stars are unable to earn a pay day the women are, then the situation becomes the same, even if the context is radically different. But this isn't about purely money and context is literally everything here in saying the situation isn't the same. To ignore the context of why WWE gave the women a payday and say "oh nope it's the same, one gender can't get booked" is really disingenuous. So I'm going to paint this as clear as possible: the women were deprived of a planned and booked payday due to a change of plans, so the company gave them a payday to make up for that. Not for not working one show. For having the shows they did have canceled. To try and compare the situations is at its most generous, still dishonest. But you dont seem to see the point. If they decide to run an extra show that only females talent can work, then they have made a situation that is the same - because they are depriving the male talent of the chance to earn the same money. So stripping out the moralisation, which is what I qualified my statement with, it is the same financial situation. A worker is being deprived the right to earn money based on their gender. You can argue it's balancing scales or positive for social justice or equality, or anything else and you may be absolutely right from a moral standpoint. However, from a purely financial standpoint, if they dont give the males the same chance to earn as the females, then they have created the same FINANCIAL situation as the Saudi tour did when it denied the female talent the right to earn. My point was purely about money - not morals
|
|
|
Post by Final Countdown Jones on Jul 13, 2018 4:50:40 GMT -5
But this isn't about purely money and context is literally everything here in saying the situation isn't the same. To ignore the context of why WWE gave the women a payday and say "oh nope it's the same, one gender can't get booked" is really disingenuous. So I'm going to paint this as clear as possible: the women were deprived of a planned and booked payday due to a change of plans, so the company gave them a payday to make up for that. Not for not working one show. For having the shows they did have canceled. To try and compare the situations is at its most generous, still dishonest. But you dont seem to see the point. If they decide to run an extra show that only females talent can work, then they have made a situation that is the same - because they are depriving the male talent of the chance to earn the same money. So stripping out the moralisation, which is what I qualified my statement with, it is the same financial situation. A worker is being deprived the right to earn money based on their gender. You can argue it's balancing scales or positive for social justice or equality, or anything else and you may be absolutely right from a moral standpoint. However, from a purely financial standpoint, if they dont give the males the same chance to earn as the females, then they have created the same FINANCIAL situation as the Saudi tour did when it denied the female talent the right to earn. My point was purely about money - not morals No it's not. I'm not even moralizing, and you're just talking around the same circle of ignoring the factors I'm bringing up to say "It's the same because it's the same". It's not "morals" to point out that shows got canceled for the women and not for the men. One potential night off isn't even the same as an entire week's house shows getting canceled even if you want to play this game, but I'm pretty done with this game now so you have a good one.
|
|
|
Post by KofiMania on Jul 13, 2018 11:19:56 GMT -5
But you dont seem to see the point. If they decide to run an extra show that only females talent can work, then they have made a situation that is the same - because they are depriving the male talent of the chance to earn the same money. So stripping out the moralisation, which is what I qualified my statement with, it is the same financial situation. A worker is being deprived the right to earn money based on their gender. You can argue it's balancing scales or positive for social justice or equality, or anything else and you may be absolutely right from a moral standpoint. However, from a purely financial standpoint, if they dont give the males the same chance to earn as the females, then they have created the same FINANCIAL situation as the Saudi tour did when it denied the female talent the right to earn. My point was purely about money - not morals No it's not. I'm not even moralizing, and you're just talking around the same circle of ignoring the factors I'm bringing up to say "It's the same because it's the same". It's not "morals" to point out that shows got canceled for the women and not for the men. One potential night off isn't even the same as an entire week's house shows getting canceled even if you want to play this game, but I'm pretty done with this game now so you have a good one. It could be a similar situation if they book the Women’s PPV instead of one of the pay per views they were originally going to run. For instance, if it has to do with the recently canceled October 21st PPV.
|
|
|
Post by Final Countdown Jones on Jul 13, 2018 11:27:26 GMT -5
No it's not. I'm not even moralizing, and you're just talking around the same circle of ignoring the factors I'm bringing up to say "It's the same because it's the same". It's not "morals" to point out that shows got canceled for the women and not for the men. One potential night off isn't even the same as an entire week's house shows getting canceled even if you want to play this game, but I'm pretty done with this game now so you have a good one. It could be a similar situation if they book the Women’s PPV instead of one of the pay per views they were originally going to run. For instance, if it has to do with the recently canceled October 21st PPV. The PPV wasn't canceled; they still hold the booking, but instead of TLC it's now being advertised as a "WWE Live Supershow". Just a super fancy house show with Smackdown and Raw wrestlers on the card. So even if they were to place it on that date--although Ronda is billed for the show on the 21st at the moment and no way she's not on any all-women PPV--the men would have another show that night to work anyway.
|
|
|
Post by KofiMania on Jul 13, 2018 11:49:03 GMT -5
It could be a similar situation if they book the Women’s PPV instead of one of the pay per views they were originally going to run. For instance, if it has to do with the recently canceled October 21st PPV. The PPV wasn't canceled; they still hold the booking, but instead of TLC it's now being advertised as a "WWE Live Supershow". Just a super fancy house show with Smackdown and Raw wrestlers on the card. So even if they were to place it on that date--although Ronda is billed for the show on the 21st at the moment and no way she's not on any all-women PPV--the men would have another show that night to work anyway. I meant more in terms of missing out on a PPV bonus.
|
|
|
Post by Final Countdown Jones on Jul 13, 2018 11:56:22 GMT -5
The PPV wasn't canceled; they still hold the booking, but instead of TLC it's now being advertised as a "WWE Live Supershow". Just a super fancy house show with Smackdown and Raw wrestlers on the card. So even if they were to place it on that date--although Ronda is billed for the show on the 21st at the moment and no way she's not on any all-women PPV--the men would have another show that night to work anyway. I meant more in terms of missing out on a PPV bonus. I'd imagine the big Australian show has more to do with the concrete change in PPV schedule than this theoretical maybe women's show that hasn't really left the consideration stage or been narrowed down between a few different months. Also at this point we're calling it a "PPV" but the phrase "all women's event" could easily be something taking place well outside the typical event structure and filmed at Full Sail.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,020
|
Post by Legion on Jul 13, 2018 12:07:45 GMT -5
But you dont seem to see the point. If they decide to run an extra show that only females talent can work, then they have made a situation that is the same - because they are depriving the male talent of the chance to earn the same money. So stripping out the moralisation, which is what I qualified my statement with, it is the same financial situation. A worker is being deprived the right to earn money based on their gender. You can argue it's balancing scales or positive for social justice or equality, or anything else and you may be absolutely right from a moral standpoint. However, from a purely financial standpoint, if they dont give the males the same chance to earn as the females, then they have created the same FINANCIAL situation as the Saudi tour did when it denied the female talent the right to earn. My point was purely about money - not morals No it's not. I'm not even moralizing, and you're just talking around the same circle of ignoring the factors I'm bringing up to say "It's the same because it's the same". It's not "morals" to point out that shows got canceled for the women and not for the men. One potential night off isn't even the same as an entire week's house shows getting canceled even if you want to play this game, but I'm pretty done with this game now so you have a good one. How much is irrelevant, the point remains a worker is denied the right to earn money because of their gender in both situation.
|
|
|
Post by Mid-Carder on Jul 13, 2018 13:26:10 GMT -5
No it's not. I'm not even moralizing, and you're just talking around the same circle of ignoring the factors I'm bringing up to say "It's the same because it's the same". It's not "morals" to point out that shows got canceled for the women and not for the men. One potential night off isn't even the same as an entire week's house shows getting canceled even if you want to play this game, but I'm pretty done with this game now so you have a good one. How much is irrelevant, the point remains a worker is denied the right to earn money because of their gender in both situation. By your logic, everyone with a WWE contract who isn’t on 205 Live or NXT should get paid every time those shows are on. The show in Saudi Arabia wasn’t booked as a men-only show- the women COULD NOT appear even if WWE had wanted it. Booking a women-only PPV is just another gimmick show and the men aren’t being denied anything.
|
|