Well, that would have been a point I accept as far as it shows your still in denial but this discrediting defense mode of yours is below your standards. I expected better. I dont have the necessary fakeschool degree for it. Only available in Canada.
3 of the top 50 in Canada, Germany clocks in at #55: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2013-14/world-ranking
And what has this to do with all of them fakeschools you guys have in your country? I dont think @Moaca (Im missing him) has ever seen an university from inside. Also: most famous German scientist of all time most famous Canadian scientis of all time: ??? lol
Sarah Gehrke @Sarah_Gehrke 57m57 minutes ago ESPN Brazil is reporting the Brazil men's national team won't play in the PanAm games in Canada bc of artificial turf http://espn.uol.com.br/noticia/469090_futebol-masculino-do-brasil-nao-disputara-pan-de-2015-diz-cob… Sarah Gehrke @Sarah_Gehrke 49m49 minutes ago The reason cited for not sending the Brazilian men's team to the PanAm games is concern about injuries
You mean the guy who got out of the country as fast as he could because they were going to kill him? The Swiss citizen for 50 years who lived in the States for 15? The guy who studied all his post-secondary in Switzerland? Oh yeah, that guy. Hell of an example of a German degree. You mean the Brazil where the American game was postponed yesterday because the field was unplayable? Alex Morgan @alexmorgan13 · 24h24 hours ago Game cancelled tonight... #notimpressed
Id consider him a German example since we went to the same school. Not for nothing called today Albert-Einstein-Gymnasium München
Put that and the original article into Google Translate and for source language choose "bullshit" and the translation comes out as: 7-1
Speaking of shining examples: we've seen some good old Canadian fakeschooling in this thread, dont you agree?
German universities are considered mediocre. So any examples of Canadian fakery would be maudlin comparatively. I was actually surprised when I found this out, I thought the standard would have been higher and didn't realize the level of investment was so low. Seems odd.
Comes out as 7-1 no matter what language you select. Some languages you get a picture of Marcelo looking like he's just seen a ghost with it. Women were officially recognized as persons under the law in misogynist Canada in 1929. Have you guy's done that yet?
The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany does even prescribe the implementation of their rights should be promoted by the state. Has misogynist arctica-state done that yet? Do you even have a genuine constitution? Probably the reason the girls over here defacto dont have to play the 2nd fiddle. Makes me think if German authorities should sue Canada for violating basic human rights of German citizens and German constitutional law. Id be in favor of it. Article 3 [Equality before the law] (1) All persons shall be equal before the law. (2) Men and women shall have equal rights. The state shall promote the actual implementation of equal rights for women and men. (3) No person shall be favoured or disfavoured because of sex, parentage, race, language, homeland and origin, faith, or religious or political opinions. No person shall be dis favoured because of disability.
Canadians are pretty proud of our Constitution. I could pot-kettle-black that but meh. To be honest, Canada and Germany are both great examples of progressive women's rights. Your excerpt is actually very good because it mentions the word "equal". If the women's tournament didn't cost 1/2000 the investment to host as the men's, and if the broadcasting, media coverage, sponsorship, world interest (and bonus money given by federations) wasn't a minor fraction of the men's - things would be equal. As it is, they're not, they're enormously different. If it was a gender reverse it would be the other way around. The way things are isn't misogynist or sexist. The way they are is fair and equal. Unfortunately that distinction is difficult for people to grasp, especially in a soundbite world in the internet age.
Off topic but Kelly O'Hara always cracks me right up. Look at some of the champs in that photo above - Alex Morgan, Lauren Holiday, Kelly O'Hara, Christen Press. After they weather the power struggles and drama and get rid of the old dead weight on and off the field, that team has a bright future.
Nonsense. The discrimination derives from the fact that the sport is played on a certain surface all over the world. By men and women. Canada now indeed discriminates by the fact that women have to play on an inferior, cheap, fake surface while the men dont/wouldnt have to. The argument that women generate less money and therefore deserve to play on an inferior surface is utterly ridiculous. I admit that you cant create total equality throughout the world, but in pro sports or the most important tourney every four years not providing them with the equal best surface(the best what the men have) is discrimination. Whatever the reasons may be, sexist, misogynist or dont care attitude doesnt matter -it is discriminating. What makes the discrimination so severe in the case of Canada is that it would be cheap, it could be easily done, and Canada denying the fact there was discrimination in the first place. I hope future Canadian generations will look back in shame for what was still possible in the year 2015 and admit their ancestors wrongdoings in a sort of Vergangenheitsbewältigung.
Yes and that surface is called turf too. Again, it's our FOURTH World Cup on it. It's grown in usage on virtually every continent in the world. It's being used in men's WC qualifiers. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this? Why is anyone who does fake, discriminating and in denial? The argument you're making can be applied to everything from the officials to stadiums to bonuses to concessions to wearing a bra. Men don't have to wear one all over the world so it's discriminating to let women.
Your argument can be applied to anything. How many men's have had female officials? How many women's U20s had been played on turf when we did it? How many men's U20s? How many women's? Notice any pattern there?
Ah, now I get it this is a "there's always a first" of a wider change and that's why it is no discrimination. Just a coincidence that FIFA is exposing the one gender to this so-called first time risks that obviously matters less to them, generates less money for them etc. You can talk around it as long as you like: the girls get less than the standard they deserve. They get less than the men, -that's easy! That's a fact you cannot deny. It is like a woman and a man do the same job and the woman contrary to her male colleague gets the crappy old 486 pc to work with. Now if we follow your theory it was just a coincidence she was the one who ended up with the 486. Do you really believe that? Therefore it is discrimination. It is fake. It would be no discrimination if the next men WCs were to be played on turf too. But they are not. I wonder why....
Throw out the risks and change "matters less to them and generates less money for them" to "matters less to the world and generates less money and interest for everyone in the world" and yes, and actually with the U20s the men were first and "discriminated" against.
You cant compare U20 men with women. You need to compare women with men. With U20 women and U20 men youve got a point. But given the next two men WC take place on grass, one in comparable arctic climate like Canada's, one taking place in the desert, so to say places where turf would be recommended, we have a case of discrimination. Brazil 2014 men with grass, Canada 2015 with turf. Discrimination of the women. If Russia and Qatar take place on grass, and they will be, we have a clear case of discrimination. Doesnt matter if women generate less money, less interest for the world. With that kind of argument youd also could take the Paralympics away from the olympic stadia and host them in the local school gymnasium. If you did everybody would rightfully scream "discrimination". Let's say the women would have their competitions outside of the olympic stadium cause men's 100m is more popular than women's 100m. If you did everybody would rightfully scream "discrimination". Your concept of equality follows to much the paths of economics, Im afraid. Whereas the right for equality was established to outweigh the effects (among other aspects) of economics. Actually, a pretty poor understanding of equality.
There was another women's U20 on grass after the U20 men on turf, which by the way, no one complained about.
TBH, although Im an avid follower of world footy I didnt notice this at all. I guess this went under the radar of a lot of people. And I guess that's the way it was supposed and intended to happen by FIFA. Sneakingly, slowly through the backdoor. Part of a further "plan" of FIFA to introduce turf in world footy apart from the discrimination complex. I elaborated this before. Canada might be the the first time a certain amount of people recognize it and a certain degree of media interest shines its light at this. When you think of it, under normal circumstances this could be a great sign for the development of women's footy. You cant blame Canada for the starting position. But you can blame Canada and its helpers in form of yourself for not recognizing the injustice and not doing the right thing now. You have to accept that you discriminate -if you intended to do so or not doesnt matter. You have to make the right decisions and take all steps necessary to provide the girls with what they deserve. You have to apologize for playing for time, for denying the truth disrespecting/hurting women's feelings -all in all for not acting (earlier). You have to cut yourselves off of mummy FIFAs tit.