Sort of sweet. While I suppose it's some sort of progress that women are now taking advantage of the same sort of sports scam as men, I can only grumble at that kind of salary being dropped on a sports coach at a university, regardless of gender. When the women doing research and teaching start getting that much, then we can talk.

Why would the discussion of a particualr coaches salary be of particular importance, period? Salaries are relative to the exposure of the league and works of the individual coach. You would do well to consider that.

... because salaries are also relative to gender. In particular, sports coaching is a boys' club, and having a woman start to break into it is a good step towards dismantling the boys' club mentality everywhere.

"... because salaries are also relative to gender."

Says who? Based on what? The last time I cheched... the job pay was based on a job description and then acumen and risk; then weighed across a national wage scale for that particular job. I guess you'll believe whatever you need to... to substatiate a behavior. But the marketplace would strongly dissagree with you.

"In particular, sports coaching is a boys' club,"

That's a particularly sectarian view. Most sports [yes] are masculine, they are natural arenas for men to vent their agression in a focused and team oriented fashion. There is nothing wrong with that... this is also considering that most women want to watch male sports. But, that has nothing to do with the who is coaching, if it is a female sport and the coach is female... and they can afford to pay her based on sport popularity; she'll get her fair pay based on merit [what they typically pay a coach on... in case you wondered] of course you'll probably find something wrong with that, but there isn't in all actuality.

" and having a woman start to break into it is a good step towards dismantling the boys' club mentality everywhere."

There are genders for a reason, we engage in the activities and exibit certain behaviors based on that basic fact. They are what they are. I am quite sure you are aware of this. But "boys club?" come now... that comment is a little dated don't you think?

If it is a sport and it is popular, people will pay to see it. If they pay to see it, sponsors show up, if sponsors show up... money shows up -- when money shows up, people get paid. All in their relation to their given level of participation and where it stands in the work place; regardless of their gender. Just look at modelling [since you want to go there] female models out strip their male counterparts pay almost 6 to 1, and that is on average I might add. I certainly don't percieve much objectivity nor reality to your comments relative to the actual work place conditions itself.

My Goodness! For all of their feminist hatin', our right-wing love muffins sure do post a lot! ;0)

The reprobate mind never ceases to amaze...

Do you honestly know how silly you sound?

In a free market economy a tool is what can be used to produce an income. If her singular looks can craft an income, more power to her. I have never hear one of them complain yet.

" Yah, because you're just OPPRESSING US by using us as sex objects and enforcing your unrealistic beauty standards on us!!"

If you are actively engaged in using your natural gift of beauty for
a means of income, you're not being oppressed -- you made a choice, that choice was mututal between her and her benefactors. That PC rhetoric you are spitting doesn't change a woman's stripes. Your nature demands being admired. What's wrong with being paid for it. Just so you know... there is an unequivical, nonsubjective standard of natural beauty. That's why it's an industry; different strokes. But you knew this... right?

"HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU: When men are paid more than women, women are victims! And when women are paid more than men, women are victims!!"

What is with that victacrat nonsense... victims? That is the most unsubstantiated fatalistic BS you've uttered thus far. I need to be told nothing... you need to see, that ultimately feminism failed because [in the end] if a man can't tell a woman what to do... they sure as heck aren't going to tell another woman what to do.

Feminism is childish, and nothing more.

To you, Breck. TDR needs to get a clue about what feminist theory really says about the objectification of women, but given the attitude displayed in his posts I have little hope for him as he doesn't seem to have much inside of him except bitterness. And for the record, I've never seen such a long and angry reponse to what is essentially a self-parody.

Hey, Lefty

Isn't it amazing how projection works? You just open your mouth and label people with your problems as theirs.

feminimism is rooted in bitterness, self focus and social dissidence... there is nothing in it [as a social "movement?" that can preserve he union or bring its people closer together.

You're the angry one.. remeber, you just can't talk that nonsense around people who are well adjusted -- and have common sense. Nice try though.... really.

TDR,

There's nothing in my post or Jessica's post or Zed's that was bitter, self focused or socially dissident. And FYI I am a GUY, so how it is possible that feminism is about "self focus" I don't understand. There are other problems with your assertions as well of course. I'm not going to get into boilerplate arguments here which are way off topic, though.

In response to your point that job salary/status is based on the marketplace, therefore it cannot be relative to gender, the two are not mutually exclusive. The marketplace doesn't just pop up out of nothing, and neither do the choices that the consumers who feed that marketplace make. An intellectual devoid, culturally base society will find a reflection of its base, ignorant tastes from the marketers and the companies. And in the same way, people who are conditioned to sexism through a sexist society will feed a sexist marketplace.

As for what people will pay to see, I find models not to be particularly attractive in fact, for there is nothing attractive about a piece of meat that sits there doing nothing. Women athletes on the other hand display not only health and strength of body but actual skill and the competitive spirit, which I find highly sexy. Darwin would agree with me that health and spunk is more attractive than health alone. I imagine women would have different reactions, more of an identification with the person, a desire to emulate them. Which, incidentally, is how I feel about watching mens' sports.

Angry Left, I agree with you. However, as tempting as it may be to feed the trolls, especially in That Darn Republlican's case, it's a futile exercise. So, I make comments like the one above. On this subject, I'm all about the troll drinking game that someone posted in another thread! ROFLMAO, that was perfect!

Good points, Breck. I fall into the trap of wanting to debate them sometimes.

Listen, the comments left by me were relevant and true. Feminisms [like most ism's] are a projection of a particular point of view as if has more social relevance than a position may possibly hold in reality.

Now people aren't perfect, however to enflame people with needless rhetoric when reality [by-in-large] cannot support a of the claims touted to support most feminist antics... it is nonsense. Now labels such as sexist or [even more ridiculous] "piece of meat" are only important to those who those hold those labels as behavioral modifiers important.

It entirely meaningless that you call someone considering a woman in modeling as a piece of meat... especially as the marketplace that female models make their premier income is for feminine products... so you have nullified your argument right there; at any rate it is a mile high hypocrisy and a gross misrepresentation of a man's perspective of a woman's beauty as a profession.

No one contests fair pay for pair participation but [again the point was missed in idle defenses] as it pertains to sports, guess what regardless of gender... if the market isn't there to support the level of pay you feel a woman should be getting in comparison to a male colleague of similar profession and genre, no one is going to pay above scale for it; regardless of gender. No amount of posturing can evade that reality.

Also... you would do you well to govern your passions in your defense of... well, your gender based confederates here. I didn't not call her comments socially dissident, but as to self focused... that may be different. They pertained [rightly so] to feminism is a movement, like all "movements" they are about self perception and [enough of a] consensus to effect some sort of change. So I cannot buy your arguments there... not very well thought out, that and who cares what darwin thinks anyway? Life was not designed to live your life for theories convenient to pave over convictions for lifestyle choices, we call that carnal; to which you are free to do [with in reason] just don't try to tell everyone else that your ideals are the rule, when we all understand by nature -- they are the exception.

Listen, the comments left by me were relevant and true. Feminisms [like most ism's] are a projection of a particular point of view as if has more social relevance than a position may possibly hold in reality.

Now people aren't perfect, however to enflame people with needless rhetoric when reality [by-in-large] cannot support a of the claims touted to support most feminist antics... it is nonsense. Now labels such as sexist or [even more ridiculous] "piece of meat" are only important to those who those hold those labels as behavioral modifiers important.

It entirely meaningless that you call someone considering a woman in modeling as a piece of meat... especially as the marketplace that female models make their premier income is for feminine products... so you have nullified your argument right there; at any rate it is a mile high hypocrisy and a gross misrepresentation of a man's perspective of a woman's beauty as a profession.

No one contests fair pay for pair participation but [again the point was missed in idle defenses] as it pertains to sports, guess what regardless of gender... if the market isn't there to support the level of pay you feel a woman should be getting in comparison to a male colleague of similar profession and genre, no one is going to pay above scale for it; regardless of gender. No amount of posturing can evade that reality.

Also... you would do you well to govern your passions in your defense of... well, your gender based confederates here. I didn't not call her comments socially dissident, but as to self focused... that may be different. They pertained [rightly so] to feminism is a movement, like all "movements" they are about self perception and [enough of a] consensus to effect some sort of change. So I cannot buy your arguments there... not very well thought out, that and who cares what darwin thinks anyway? Life was not designed to live your life for theories convenient to pave over convictions for lifestyle choices, we call that carnal; to which you are free to do [with in reason] just don't try to tell everyone else that your ideals are the rule, when we all understand by nature -- they are the exception.

"Sweet? Sweet?? Tubby Smith at Kentucky is getting $2.4M a year!!"

Great. Now factor in the facts that Kentucky has the greatest college basketball tradition in the nation and that the UK men's program makes a lot more than the UT women's program. A LOT more.

Frankly I'm surprised she's making $1 million with how few people actually like watching women's basketball. I watched three minutes of a WNBA game recently and I've never seen so many consecutive missed layups. It's not even basketball. I guess it would be the equivalent of watching five random guys trying to cook.