Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "The surfer not considered hot enough for sponsorship - BBC News" video.

I don't what's more galling, the belief that she's ENTITLED to be sponsored for basically doing what she loves, or her apparent ignorance of the fact that sponsorship is a commercial decision made by companies wishing to benefit by the association. When she complains that men are not held to similar standards, I think she must be wilfully being stupid in order to disregard the racism inherent in the advertising industry.
16
+Goldie Dee What on Earth do her humble beginnings or the fact that she self finances have to do with whether or not she feels entitled Goldie? She assumed that if she took her hobby to a good level that she was ENTITLED to be paid to do so. When she reached a suitably high level, she came crashing up against the reality of the fact that sponsors require more than simply sporting ability, and now here she is complaining about it on international news. That seems like the very definition of entitlement to me.
6
+Goldie Dee if she does NOT believe that she entitled to sponsorship, why are we hearing about her, and why did she do this interview?
3
+Goldie Dee If it was a male, he'd never be such a wimp as to complain that he wasn't being sponsored for being too plain looking in the first place. And yes, I am being dismissive and patronising about her hobby. If she doesn't get paid for it, that's all it is. I'm not demeaning her skills in the slightest, but let's not get this out of proportion. She is an obscure participant, in an obscure sport, from a relatively minor nation, yet one of the largest news organisations in the world has chosen to pick up this story and report it. They wouldn't have been able to do so if SHE was not making noises about discrimination based upon attractiveness. She reminds me of the millions of plain feminists who moan about objectification - something that they don't suffer from in the first place.
3
+Goldie Dee I was curious to hear in what way she had suffered discrimination, and whether it was justified. For BBC sport to do a news piece on an obscure Brazilian surfer is somewhat unusual. And much as you might want to turn this around, I'M not the one moaning that people won't give me free stuff simply for doing what I love. There's no comparison between this woman's sense of entitlement, or the Meldrew character you try to equate me with. Unless you also think it's fair play for me to equate you with a blonde bimbo simply because we do not share the same opinion?
2
+Jee Dee I do agree that there is sexism in marketing. That's why female models earn twice as much as their male counterparts., Nice strawman. Next please.
2
+Goldie Dee Not quite sure what that has to do with it. how does the fact that I'm a skateboarder make surfing any less obscure Goldie? But I do accept your comments about her fame and her pioneering status. I also absolutely disbelieve her claims now, that she cannot get sponsorship because of her looks. If a doofus like Eddie The Eagle Edwards managed to get sponsorship, ANYBODY can get it. There's more to this story than she is telling us. Either she has built a reputation for being hard to work with, or she's a liability to sponsors in other ways - none of which affects her ability to surf amazingly, but DOES affect her value for sponsorship. Anyway, it's been fun to exchange views Goldie. Thanks for keeping it civil. Have a wonderful life!
1
+Jee Dee As long as CONSUMERS make decisions based upon factors other than ability, sponsors will pay on factors other than talent. When YOU start buying make up or household products or cars advertised by the fat ugly person, you have the moral authority to complain. until then you are as much a part of the "problem" as the sponsors.
1
+bisquitnspanky Lol - that's absolutely true!
1
+Jee Dee I was a journalist for over 20 years. Even in subjects that had NOTHING to do with women, such as technical computing, if the audience was men and we put a sexy looking woman on the cover, it doubled sales or more. Much as you might WISH that the world wasn't driven by sex and looks, that's not the world you live in.
1
+Jee Dee I don't know whether it's fair to call natural preference "sexism". There's a reason why female basketball doesn't make as much money, or attract as much sponsorship as male basketball. It's because female players are bad, short, weak, and less exciting to watch compared to their male counterparts. That's not sexism - it's a statement of fact, and it's one that affects viewing figures. I NEVER watch ANY female Olympic events. Is that because I'm sexist? No. It's just why would I want to watch people are not remotely the best at what they do? Why watch the world's fastest woman run 100m race in times male college athletes can match? In modelling, women make twice as much as men - why? Because the target demographic responds more favourably to attractive women than to attractive men.In football, the top players make tens of millions from sponsorship, yet when one of them does something wrong, like beating his kid or hitting his girlfriend, his sponsors drop him IMMEDIATELY. Quite clearly there is FAR more involved than ability. I am still unconvinced that this is sexism so much as simple market forces.
1
+Jee Dee I'm sorry but I did NOT describe sexism. I was describing preference based upon ABILITY - the fact that ability is linked to gender is coincidental. Female MMA fighter Rhonda Rousey is currently the best paid fighter on UFC. I watch her, and she earns what she earns because she provides exactly the same entertainment value as men. I don't watch female Olympians for the same reason that I don't watch Chinese basketball, or Saudi ice skaters - they're not worth watching. I didn't for one second suggest that there was no audience for female Olympians, but almost all female sports attract significantly lower viewing figures. That's clearly not because men do not find looking at healthy female bodies appealing, but because female SPORT is unappealing to a significant percentage of the audience. You keep saying that " target demographic is skill", yet I have demonstrated repeatedly that whilst skill gets you into a position where you can attract attention, it is NOT the sole factor in determining sponsorship. Don't believe me? Find a beautiful, skilful girl and then reveal that she is a paedophile - see how much sponsorship her skill gets her then. The fact that this woman MAY (and I'm still not sure I believe her story) have been passed over because she is insufficiently attractive is NOT sexist because EXACTLY the same thing may occur if she was an ugly male. At WORST, it's merely superficial - exactly like the people who might buy suntan cream because an attractive surfer is wearing it.
1
+Jee Dee I DO appreciate women and men in ANY role, so long as they make achievements based upon merit. I also appreciate women and men based on their physical attributes, figure, facial appeal, etc. And so does the rest of the planet. Telling advertisers that they're sexist because they are recognising the aesthetic choices of their target demographic, is as naively unrealistic as complaining that magazine covers don't use more ugly models. With respect Jee, you still have not shown in any way, that this single case is sexist rather than aesthetic and non gendered. Even the fact that less attractive male surfers could gain sponsorship does not prove sexism. It simply proves that the target demographic responds to different criteria in males. Do me a favour and do a Google image search of "Brazilian female surfers". You might as well be looking at the cover of a low level porn mag right? Whose fault is that? Men's because they like to look at hot women? The photographers' because they give men what they want? Or the women's for wanting to get that kind of attention?
1
+Jee Dee Marketing is NOT a meritocracy, nor should it be - it's a business. I'm sure that many young girls DO look up to her. And I'm certain that she could have gotten SOME degree of sponsorship. but if a company can make a million dollars on a good looking girl, and a hundred thousand on a less attractive one, are you saying that they should have to accept the lesser return?
1
+Jee Dee "Tell that to that to the many gold Olympic female winners who worked hard to get where they are"How is that an argument? You might as well say, "Some black women appear in adverts, therefore advertising loves black women". Just because advertisers are willing to pay SOME successful people from a demographic to represent their product does not mean that the industry operates as a meritocracy, or do you think that the Kardasians merit the rewards that they have gained because one of them is a minor porn star? I honestly don't think sexism means what you think it means. But now we're going round in circles. In your world, companies should apparently be forced to choose a candidate that will perform worse for them because...? Why has she now been picked up for sponsorship? Because she raised her PROFILE enough to become valuable. She became a more worthwhile asset so companies used her. Or are you seriously suggesting that companies whose only bottom line is profit, picked her up out of guilt?
1
+Jee Dee You just keep as if you think companies OWE her sponsorship. They owe her nothing, and if they DO choose to sponsor her, she needs to provide a return commensurate to their investment. Never once have you addressed this point that I've made 3 or 4 times. And now you seem to be implying that BUSINESSES have been guilt tripped into spending their money on her by pointing out that she is now sponsored. They're not charities or social reform agencies. The only possible reason that that would happen is that they perceive that it would now cost them more in public outcry NOT to sponsor her. Which would suggest that the surfing industry - an industry primarily dominated by men - is so interested in injustice based upon looks, that they would boycott these companies for NOT sponsoring her.
1
+Jee Dee "Given that surfing brands are an image driven market" You said it right there."If you're so against "affirmative action" based upon merit and achievements "When it comes to the rights of advertisers to spend their own budgets however they see fit, I am absolutely against affirmative action, because the alternative is to lay out this huge list of demographics and then insist that they spend equally on each group.And you STILL haven't shown that this was sexism as opposed to "attractivism". You suggested that if it was a man, being less attractive would be less of an impediment, and you're probably correct. But even THAT is not sexism. It's a reflection of the fact that we have gendered standards of what attractiveness represents, so a less aesthetic male comes across as rugged, whereas a less aesthetic female comes across as masculine.I'm a reasonably fair minded guy: I'm not particularly bothered how this woman looks, but if she was pig ugly and you stick her in a bikini (as most surf females are portrayed in media), I would find that image actively DISSUASIVE of whatever she was selling. Why? Because our responses to attractiveness kick in before our intellectual analysis of the proposition on offer. And I should also note my surprise that you are not railing against the fact that female surfers are all portrayed in bikinis. "then most industries would be boycotted already"Most industries WOULD NOT be boycotted, because the target demographics are not interested in the kind of level of enforced equality that you appear to espouse. But I will agree with you on several issues. Provided it is not her behaviour in contract negotiations or on the circuit that prevented her attaining sponsorship, it is unfair in a cosmic sense, that she does not attain the same rewards for her effort as a male. It's unfair that babies die of cancer. You can't legislate for the inequities of life. I also agree that she has achieved incredible success and deserves full respect for that, and her appearance should play NO part in that (nor has it). Her hard work and skills have earned her respect as a surfer. That respect does not come with a guaranteed sponsorship deal, anymore than being the world's best male gymnast or baton twirler does. If she wanted wealth she should have become a banker.
1