Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1 US Women's Soccer Team Goalie Blasts Christian Player: 'You're Intolerant and Homo... 
    Power CUer SVPete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    12,090
    U.S. Women's Soccer Team Goalie Blasts Christian Player: 'You're Intolerant and Homophobic'

    A few days ago, several news outlets reported that the U.S. Women's National Team -- which recently won the World Cup soccer championship -- may have ditched star player Jaelene Hinkle because of her religious views. Now, the backup goalie of the team, Ashlyn Harris, has basically confirmed that, while simultaneously putting the blame for it squarely on Hinkle's shoulders.

    Harris responded to a conversation between Hinkle and Catholic advocate Obianuju Ekeocha. ...
    ...
    "I just felt so convicted in my spirit that it wasnít my job to wear this jersey. I gave myself three days to just seek and pray and determine what [God] was asking me to do in this situation," (Hinkle) explained afterward on the 700 Club. She added that although she would love to play for the national team in other matches, her faith came first.

    "Iím essentially giving up the one dream little girls dream about their entire life. It was very disappointing. And I think thatís where the peace trumps the disappointment, because I knew in my spirit I was doing the right thing. I knew I was being obedient. Just because youíre obedient doesnít make it easy Ö If I never get another national team call-up again then thatís just a part of [Godís] plan, and thatís OK."

    ... In response to Hinkle's conversation with Ekeocha, Harris tweeted:

    Hinkle, our team is about inclusion. Your religion was never the problem. The problem is your intolerance and you are homophobic. You donít belong in a sport that aims to unite and bring people together. You would never fit into our pack or what this team stands for.

    Donít you dare say our team is Ďnot a welcoming place for Christiansí. You werenít around long enough to know what this team stood for. This is actually an insult to the Christians on our team. Same on you.
    I've held off from posting this story, that Jaelene Hinkle had been excluded from the US team due to her actions based on her Christian religion, because it was unconfirmed. It's safe to say, I think, the Harris confirmed the story. Harris' Tweets are absurd on at least a couple of levels.

    First, Hinkle's action was based directlty on two millennia of Christian teaching concerning both homosexuality and marriage.

    Second, Jaelene Hinkle has been a professional soccer player for 3 or more seasons, and played in college as well. IOW, there are years, maybe a decade or more, of Hinkle playing on the same fields and probably teams as lesbian soccer players. How she performs on the field and within a team is far from unknown, yet the only knock Harris came up with was Hinkle refusing to wear a Gay Pride uniform jersey in two 2017 matches.

    The US Women's Soccer team excluded Jaelene Hinkle, a known star player, solely because of her religion. AFAIK, they had the right to do that. I wonder though, whether their act of bigotry - that's what it was - may turn out to be a black eye for women's professional soccer in the US.
    Facts don't matter to DUpipo.

    BIG CHEETO Is Watching You!

    "Handmaid's Tale" is Christian-Bashing Hate Speech
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    27,494
    I don't believe the actions of Harris and Rapinoe encourage more people to start watching the games which is what they need if they want a chance at equal pay with the men. Who wants to spend money and time watching some angry lesbians and their enablers kick a ball around for a couple of hours. I suspect only the people who are currently doing so.

    The intolerant calling others intolerant is just too much sometimes.
    Cast your burden on the Lord,
    and he will sustain you;
    he will never permit
    the righteous to be moved.
    Psalm 55:22
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Power CUer SVPete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    12,090
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    I don't believe the actions of Harris and Rapinoe encourage more people to start watching the games which is what they need if they want a chance at equal pay with the men. Who wants to spend money and time watching some angry lesbians and their enablers kick a ball around for a couple of hours. I suspect only the people who are currently doing so.
    ...
    That's a rather involved topic. Basically the union for women's soccer players structured their contract VERY differently than did the union for the men:

    Womenís Soccer and the Equal Pay Canard

    But this narrative deliberately ignores some basic economic realities as well as the womenís teamís own objectives.

    Take the differences in World Cup prize money awarded to the womenís team versus the menís team. The women will share $30 million in prize money, compared to the $400 million last yearís menís World Cup champions won.

    This seems unfair until you look at the differences between the revenue generated by menís soccer and womenís soccer. Menís soccer worldwide is the most popular sport; womenís soccer doesnít come close. To take the starkest example: the menís World Cup in Russia in 2018 brought in $6 billion in revenue. The womenís World Cup this year is expected to bring in $131 million. Prize money is taken out of this revenue. As a percentage of the total revenue earned, the women were in fact paid better than the men.

    As Forbes noted, the last Womenís World Cup four years ago ďbrought in almost $73 million, of which the players got 13 [percent]. The 2010 menís World Cup in South Africa made almost $4 billion, of which 9 [percent] went to the players. The men still pull the World Cup money wagon. The menís World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million, less than 7 [percent] of revenue. Meanwhile, the Womenís World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams.Ē

    Itís also worth noting that the path to qualifying for the menís World Cup is much more arduous and competitive than it is for the womenís World Cup. The men have to win more games over a longer period of time to qualify than do the women.

    Some of the confusion about the U.S. teamís claims about equal pay stems from the fact that the American womenís team earnings are a separate issue from what FIFA awards in prize money to the menís and womenís World Cup winners.

    Worldwide, professional soccer clubs for men are much more lucrative and successful (and can afford to pay the men who play for them) than the womenís clubs, which simply arenít producing the same kind of revenue as the menís clubs and canít fill as many seats at their games as the men do (or draw as many television viewers). This might eventually change as more women in more countries play professional soccer, but for now, menís and womenís soccer are effectively functioning like two different sports in terms of revenue and audience worldwide.

    In the U.S., womenís games have recently begun to generate slightly more revenue than menís games; according to the Wall Street Journal, from 2016-2018, the womenís games generated $50.8 million and the menís games $49.9 million, a sign of growing enthusiasm for womenís soccer. But that game revenue represents only one-quarter of the USSFís total revenue. The rest comes from corporate sponsorships and TV broadcasting rights. And since the Federation sells those rights for both teams together, itís nearly impossible to tell which team generates more (although TV ratings consistently show viewership for menís soccer is much higher than for womenís soccer).

    It is also misleading to compare the menís and womenís teamsí pay because each team has a completely different pay structure. The womenís team collectively bargained for and won a pay structure that guarantees them salaries, severance pay, medical benefits, and some performance-based bonuses. The womenís team wanted the security of salary-based pay rather than purely performance-based pay, and they wanted to guarantee a salary even for players who were on the roster but didnít play.

    By contrast, the men are strictly pay-for-play. They do not receive a salary or additional benefits like health insurance or severance pay. Their pay structure is performance-based. As Michael McCann, who directs the Sports and Entertainment Law Institute at the University of New Hampshire School of Law told Minnesota Public Radio, ďThe two systems [for paying women and men] are designed differently . . . The menís system pays players when they play, through bonuses, whereas the system for womenís players has guaranteed pay and also pays for certain bonuses as well. But itís structured differently.Ē

    They are effectively two separate organizations with two separate pay structures. They are not comparable. If the womenís organization wants to be treated like the menís organization in their next collective bargaining arrangement, then they will have to argue for a change to their pay structure.

    There are, however, some clear inequalities between the menís and womenís teams that should be rectified. The women should demand and get equality when it comes to equal percentages of their budgets spent on advertising and P.R., travel and training budgets, and equal per diems for food, for example. But itís disingenuous of the womenís team to claim they arenít getting ďequal payĒ when they are the ones who agreed to a payment structure that is different from the menís team.
    IOW, if Rapinoe thinks her pay unequal she needs to whine at her union and fellow players.
    Facts don't matter to DUpipo.

    BIG CHEETO Is Watching You!

    "Handmaid's Tale" is Christian-Bashing Hate Speech
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Power CUer SVPete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    12,090
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    ...
    The intolerant calling others intolerant is just too much sometimes.
    Libs and Progs Tolerance Game has always been that, from when "Tolerance" became a "thing" back in the 1990s. It is just a rhetorical club: the conservative targets were always supposed to be "tolerant" of anything/everything; meanwhile, Libs and Progs tolerate everything except what they deem intolerable. As the Women's soccer team did to Hinkley. I did not respond effectively at the time, but about 20 years ago I actually got a Lib to admit that (not that she saw it as hypocrisy).
    Facts don't matter to DUpipo.

    BIG CHEETO Is Watching You!

    "Handmaid's Tale" is Christian-Bashing Hate Speech
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    24,574
    Claiming that Hinkle is "homophobic" because she doesn't want to support the activist agenda is a misnomer.

    Hinkle played for years with lesbian players and didn't leave soccer because of them. She never spoke out, criticizing all the lesbian behavior in soccer. She just kept to herself and played her game. Crucially, Hinkle never crossed the boundary from personal belief to proselytizing.

    Ironically enough, it was the gay activists that crossed that boundary. Hinkle was not allowed to keep to herself, live and let live. She was FORCED to be a part of activist proselytizing for a cause she did not believe in. The only equivalent to Hinkle's situation would be if the team lesbians had been forced to wear Christian T-shirts announcing "Jesus Loves You." Imagine if that had occurred: the team lesbians would be in full meltdown and the lawsuits would be flying.

    I think we ALL should have a right to refuse to proselytize for causes we don't believe in. Right now, the place I work for is in full "support the poor, suffering migrants (drinking from toilets)!" mode. As one of the few conservatives here, I keep my mouth shut, but so far, no one has forced to me to wear a T-shirt supporting law-breaking illegal immigration. I should have the right NOT to have to wear such a shirt without being called a "bigot."
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •