I love that Cori Shumacher won't keep her mouth shut…
Fucking honesty, tastes so damn sweet.
The truth is too often hurtful and ugly and mean. Takes a lot to face it, admit it. Deal with shit you’d rather avoid.
We’re all so wrapped in our delusions it’s damn hard to see clearly. All you can really do is make an effort. Try to pick apart your flaws, become a better person. Own your mistakes. Don’t keep your mouth shut when people’d rather not hear what you’re saying.
Not a lot of dissidents in the surf world. Even fewer with a voice that’s heard.
I love that Cori Shumacher won’t keep her mouth shut. Love that people are starting to listen.
Pretty basic in principle right? You got guys straw manning giving obscure facts, trying to quantify profitability versus overall revenue and brand size like Trogan as to why girls aren’t paid as much or why more girls aren’t sponsored. These idiots just need to do he eyeball test. There’s a couple hundred fully sponsored men’s QS guys out of the 800 ranked surfers. There’s 200 women doing the QS. With probably less than 100 who are actually paid enough to not have to go out of pocket to follow the tour. If that’s not enough to convince these fools that it’s business economics and not discrimination and prejudice then it only proves we’re wasting our breath.
Ah what fun! A few of the places I have surfed where there have been women only or women dominated line-ups: North Straddie (inc. Main Beach, Cylinders, Frenchies and occasionally Deadies), any of the many beachies on the Sunshine Coast (but particularly the bays and north of the river although Happy Valley, Moffs, Neil St and Ann St are often riddled with us too), DI, Fiji Pipes, Frigates, Resorts, Kuta Lombok, Tunjungan (spelling?), Honkies, Sultans, Chickens, Jails, Tiger Stripes… Perhaps if you’re not seeing women in the line-up, it’s because you’re surfing in really crowded line-ups and we’re off seeking out other places?
I’ve had plenty of discussion with Cori over Twitter in the past, sometimes we agreed other times we didn’t but she always maintained a balanced thoughtful outlook, she is smart and she is a champion of her cause and doesn’t resort to petty abuse to stand up for her point, I have learned a lot from links that Cori has posted over the years and I’m hopefully a slightly better person for it. Cori and I probably couldn’t be any more different but I still respect her despite her being a long boarder.
Good stuff. Thanks for posting that up!
I agree. I hope your daughters do NOT end up wearing thongs in the water. But should they become 18 and are comfortable in their own skin, and even are fortunate to earn a living partially based upon their looks. I hope you would support them and not side with a bunch of people bashing the, and saying they’re only getting paid because they show ass. Alana knows how to surf, Lolo Jones knows how to run. They may not be the best in the world at what they do. But they are amongst the world’s elite. Lolo Jones made a pivotal comment in SI about pundits who say she only gets paid because of her looks. She simply said “I was born this way.”. I didn’t ask to be born with these looks that people find appealing. So if a sponsor offered her money she’s supposed to say “No. I’m going to deny the million dollars because I didn’t win a gold medal.” Cmon man. If you’re raising your daughters to do the same then you are a better man than 99.99% of the people on this planet.
There is no irony in women running businesses. They are ever as qualified and intelligent as any man who walked this earth. My POINT is that a lesbian women CEO of a $100k business has no effin business demanding the salary of a straight, white hetero man who runs a $1million dollar business. If you want to argue that a man and women both running $100k companies deserve the same salary… I agree. But if you see my previous comments above. In regards to women’s surfing, looks are not necessarily the factor for pay scale. Carissa, Tyler Wright, Lakey and Courtney are proof. They’re the best at what they do and get paid more than some of the surfers that society and social media has proven to be more “attractive”. Keep in mind that Sally Fitz and Sage Erickson, who are regarded as attractive young, hetero women, have NO major sponsors. What’s the reasoning for that?
When I mean “proven” I mean they have more social media followers.
what, just cause she didn’t get the Daize Shane/Cassia Meador deal? nobody got that deal, don’t hear Granger or Zeke complaining they didn’t get Dane’s deal. like Julian isn’t more marketable than Micro? i hate people complaining about human nature. its like hating myself for not wanting to do Melissa McCarthy like i want to do Megan Fox.
I’d do Melissa McCarthy and tell everyone it was Jenny but she gained a ton of weight.
Or tell everyone it was a bloated Katja Kassin… er, I mean, not that I know who that is…
Being a good surfer with a horse face won’t sell clothes, but it will pull hot chicks. She needs to take a page out of Wilko’s book and just enjoy the ride.
Wilko got “lots of loving” because he was absolutely ripping and because he DOESN’T fit the mold of your average title contender. Other sites similar to the one you’re on have posted articles of the “Best Fat Surfers Ever” and Wilko was included in the list. You can write an article like that about men but for a second do you think you could write one titled “The best non attractive girls in surfing”? Nope. There is just as much male bashing as there are women. Is one worse than the other? Hell no. But the whole “women have it harder than the men’s” argument has more to do with the economics of women’s surfing than because they don’t show their asses. FYI. Carissa makes more sponsorship money than any other woman on tour. There goes your argument about pay. But do you know why? She had to go outside of surf companies to do so because the women’s surf industry does not generate enough revenue to pay her what her male counterpart in Kelly or John John does. Steph got a million bucks from Roxy. Dane Reynolds got 3x that from quik. Why? Because quik generates more annual sales. They sell more boardshorts than roxy does bikinis.
As far as Alana, Rip Curl has mentioned that their bikini division has encountered huge growth since her addition. Who is buying all these “inappropriate” pieces? DUDES?!?! hahah. Let me ask you, cause I can’t tell from your writing if you’re a concerned father or mother, but has your bikini styles changed since 10yrs ago? Are they bigger or smaller? Whether Alana was directly responsible for this movement, the masses have followed. And now what a 16yo would never dare wear 10-15yrs ago has become commonplace. Don’t you agree? And that is the MEN’s FAULT for objectifying women? Listen, I’m not a fan of wearing 17″ boardshorts but it has become a fashion statement. You’re blaming women for following fashion trends? And if they happen to be skinny and straight they are even MORE to blame?
I don’t hear anyone complaining about why beer companies don’t have commercials with 250lb unshaven, sweaty guys sitting in front a tv’s eating nachos?
Every one of us can be a victim of something, if we want to. Victimization is a state of mind, not an empirical reality. Let’s look at a continuum: Cori Shumacher / person who didn’t live close enough to the ocean to learn to surf / inner city kid who can’t even swim and ends up shot or in prison / Native American / born quadriplegic/deformed/brain damaged.
I mean, I’m sorry that things didn’t work out as you would have hoped, Cori – join the fucking club. The world is stupid and it sucks – this is not exactly news. As Orson Welles said (thanks Ben Mondy): “Nobody gets justice. People only get good luck or bad luck.”
You’re a great surfer, you’ve got the time and resources to do so, you’ve got a loving partner. You’ve got the right to become a victim, you’ve also got the right to be thankful and ditch your entitlement. Which feels better?
You said what I meant to say; “suck it up and appreciate what you have.”
That being said, everyone is entitled to their own struggles and their own opinions. So, good on her for giving back and sharing her story.
And I hate to inform you but the women’s bikinis and women’s sandals that Alana is wearing to sell that “idealized” beach lifestyle are most certainly designed by women. Email Rip Curl and ask them if they have dudes designing thongs.
Female surfers get paid less than their male counterparts because the men’s surf wear markets dwarf the women’s. Same reason NBA players and PGA golfers get paid more than the WNBA/LPGA players. How many men basketball shoes do you think Nike sells versus women’s? Sets of men’s golf clubs and shoes versus women’s? Some of the ugliest humans alive get paid what they deserve in basketball, football, baseball and golf because their performances on the field/court speak for themselves.
And when it comes to looks and “baring ass”, lest you not forget that men surfers surf with only boardies and no shirts most of the time, showing “glistening wet, chests and abs.” They don skin tight wetsuits and thin boardies outlining their junk and “nice asses” that chicks drool over all the time.
You have MORE women groupies fawning over “hot” male surfers at any CT or QS comp than men perving on the world’s best women. Any argument for that?
And oh… What does Alana Blanchard have to do with pro surfing? Uh, she’s a legitimate professional surfer and would destroy 99% of the women surfers on the planet. There’s literally only 16-25 surfers better than her and they happen to compose the top 16 CTers and top 5 on the QS. Don’t hate on her cause she looks good in a bikini. That’s like telling a male CT surfer to surf with a shirt cause his chest and abs are too sexy for girls to look at.
Sorry to rain on your parade but women actually spend a vast amount more retail dollars in the surf industry than men. Also, male participation in surfing is declining while women’s participation is increasing across the board with a 20% increase between 2010 and 2014. Facts are your friend.
hahahahaha Liz does the owning.
i heart liz.
See above my friend.
Liz, you’re dealing with people who believe trans-gender bathrooms are the end of America.
Give me links to your facts Liz. I have been a shareholder in Quiksilver, Volcom and Billabong and have their annual reports – which you can find online if you need confirmation yourself. If somehow your facts can counter that Roxy, Billabong women’s or Volcom women’s generate more money than their male counterparts I’d love to file a class action lawsuit against these brands for falsifying their income.
And no. Just becuase there is a 20% increase in participants from women does not mean there are more women surfers than men. You can paddle out to any lineup on any given day and use the eyeball test. Have you EVER been out in a lineup where there’s been more women than men? Ever?
Youth participation in AYSO soccer is at an all time high as well. While pop warner football numbers are decreasing because of concussion issues. Do you think that Major League Soccer Players deserve to get paid more than NFL players just because there are more of a specific category/gender (kids) participating in soccer as well? The discrepancy in pay is directly related to the revenue that is generated by the business. Facts are everyone’s friend. And these are facts not my opinion.
“generate more money” does not mean they’re more profitable.
You can’t pay what you don’t have. Regardless of probability. If I owned a $100k a year business. And profited $75k of that revenue. All I can pay an employee is $75k. If my competitor had a $200k company with the same profitability, they could AFFORD to pay $150k to a similar employee. You’re pulling straws here bro.
PROFITABILITY
It’s a nice try, but tell me how that analysis looks when the $200k company has 5x as many employees as the $100k company and a marketing budget that dwarfs that of the $100k company. More revenue alone means nothing unless you are suggesting that the overhead and cost structure for the women’s side equals that of the men?
Student888 implies you’re still learning, which seems about right. If you really want to end this debate, find out how Oaktree valued Quiksilver last year and post it here.
If you have a company that is 2x as big as your competitor and have 5x the employees and a marketing budget that dwarfs a company half the size… You’ve failed right there. Why do you think Quik was able to lay off 500-600 employees in the past several years and are still around genius? Why were they dropping riders and cutting back on advertisement? It comes down to incompetence of the management. But the REVENUE was there to do so. How do you pay Dane Reynolds $3 million a year if the money is not there?
You don’t even want to go into why the valuation was set for Quik. It would go over your head (you judge me by my screen name – I’m judging you. You’re an idiot.) They’re a public company. Public perception can affect a company’s value when there has been no fluctuation in actual bottom line. A CEO resigning/dying, a news story condemning one of their products etc. In Quik’s case they had been overvalued for a near decade. The America’s segment hadn’t been profitable for years. They were carrying enormous debt for poor acquisitions like Rossignal and Cleveland golf. DC shoes being out of favor with the core skate market. Hawk Clothing, poor snow conditions for 5+ years, oversaturation of distribution.
How you value a corporation in a near fire sale is nowhere near as accurate in regards to the company’s true bottom line than it is with a privately held company. Quik was trading at $0.0 cents for almost two months before being delisted. Tell me, how do you have a company worth ZERO that is still generating tens of millions of dollars in revenue a month? You want me to explain how Oaktree came up with their valuation? Explain my last question first. I think I already answered it. Their problem as it was with Billabong started the day they went public.
Wow, that…was…brilliant.
How do you have a company worth zero that’s still generating tens of millions of dollars a month? Easy – it costs tens of millions of dollars a month plus one to run the company, with no sign of change in the near future. It’s actually pretty basic.
So, how did ZQK pay Dane $3M a year? They borrowed. How did they pay way too many employees and way too many leases? They borrowed. How did they buy all those companies that failed? They borrowed. And guess what – those tens of millions you say they were generating each month didn’t come close to covering the debt.
So, now that I’ve answered your somewhat flawed question (because in truth, ZQK was trading in the 30-40 cent range right before it filed for BK, so the company was still worth “something”), tell me how Oaktree decided it made sense to invest $175M in the company and to take a majority ownership stake in it coming out of BK. Are you suggesting to me that they didn’t actually look at the Roxy, Quiksilver and DC brands and value them individually? If so, you’re wrong.
So getting back to the issue of Quik versus Roxy, I guess the only way to figure out who wins this battle of the sexes is to find out how the brands were valued. Hop along and see what you can find.
Lol. You missed the entire point. A company that is generating revenue, any amount of revenue is not worth $0. But on the stock exchange it can be. Quik’s problem is not that there is not enough revenue to sustain the business. Their problem is that there is not enough growth to sustain the demands of a publicly held companies status.
Their lines of credit had dissolved long ago. They generated enough money to continue to sustain their day-to-day operation such as employees and independent contractors like Dane and Steph with Roxy. Look at the reports genius. They simply stopped paying their creditors and manufacturers. They didn’t owe money on their acquisitions. They were bought outright. That is why they had to unload them.
You obliviously have no experience running a business. You take care of your employees and your vendors that need to get paid to sustain your operations. You take care of what you can afford to. The bigger ticket items like owing multi millions to the bank will not get resolved with current cash flow. So they disregard those obligations in exchange for what they can take care of.
If Oak received a majority share of the business for $175m that means the total value should be in the $300-400m range. Even at $.30-40 per share, that isn’t even close to the valuation the stock market is giving the brand. It’s obviously a viable opportunity for Oaktree otherwise they wouldn’t have dropped a single penny. That means there is still significant revenue being made. If you think you know more than analyst at Oaktree you probably wouldn’t be on a website trolling about business you know little about.
We should probably end this. You’re mixing all sorts of nonsense to the point where I don’t even know where to begin.
First, DCF is only one of the several ways to value a company. Just because a company has cash flows doesn’t mean it has any real value.
Your claims on Quik’s debt are also confusing. That their equity lines expired is really not the point. The company had to borrow for years to stay afloat – cash flow hasn’t been sufficient to support the business for years. The money they were paying their employees was partially borrowed money as well. Maybe this will help you get a grasp on how all this really looks: http://www.jeffharbaugh.com…
But all this is still a distraction – the issue we started with was whether the boys spend more than the girls. Despite all this debate, I’ve seen nothing to prove the men’s market is larger, nor have I seen anything suggesting the men are more profitable. What can you show us
As a FWIW, I not only know how Oaktree works, but I’ve done deals with them (not with this sort of asset, but the analysis is similar across the board). I promise you that they looked at Roxy, Quik and DC and valued each one before they invested here. They know exactly what each is worth, and for all we know, they may actually spin one or two off down the road. My guess is that they sell DC sooner rather than later and keep the two surf brands in an effort to get back to a much smaller and toned down new company. That company is not likely to pay guys like Dane $3M a year.
* YOU convoluted the conversation by bringing “profitability” into the conversation that simply stated that the men’s category is bigger than the women’s surf category, that is why the men athletes command larger salaries in general. If you reeeeeally don’t believe that despite claiming all your industry knowledge than, yes, this entire discussion is pointless.
* To repeat, Quik had severe debt. They operated well out of their means. But with proper downsizing, the Quik, roxy and DC brands still have significant value. Tens of millions in receivables and thousands of existing retailers contribute to a brands value and potential worth. That’s what Oaktree is investing $200mil in. Quik’s not truly worth what the market is dictating. Otherwise in theory, what you were saying about “how can a company be worth ZERO”, Oaktree wouldn’t have to pay a single penny to take over. Duh. I don’t need to click your link. I don’t need to state my background. I know what I do and I what I know. And the three brands were obviously evaluated on their individual merit. And the worth resides in Quik, roxy and DC in the descending order. Providing numbers and links is a waste of time. I know they took care of their employees and independant contractors. Their largest creditors are exactly who I said they were – banks, manufacturers. Regardless of whether payroll was subsidized by leftover “borrowed money”, they chose to put the money where they did. And if you know what you state your work history has been you know that their cash flow was not going to offset their debt so they ignored major creditor payments and instead allocated it to what they could pay – day-to-day operational costs. Bro, if you don’t pay your employees, the business ends. If you’re not paying Dane his $300k a month, the stickers come off the equipment. They obviously were. So the fact that you can’t acknowledge that is just ego and shame in your feeble straw manning attempts.
* I NEVER SAID “boys actually spend more dollars than girls”. If you look at my previous responses, I’ve said “we’re not talking about who PAYS for shit. I’m talking about which category the money is spent on.” And the men’s surf wear market is larger than the women’s. That’s a fact wall st guy. You can look up any annual report available online and prove that. BUT the fact is that you already know that but want to take moral victory in the fact that I won’t waste my time to provide links and that may lead some ignorant people on here to perhaps think you’re right. And that’s laughable. The men’s market is larger than the women’s.
* Oaktree does not have the core surf industry’s best intentions in mind. They have oaktree’s best interests in mind. As they should. They also control Billabong and all its subsidiaries. There’s no real reason for them to keep all three Quik brands core. Mass distribution for Quik, roxy and DC is more likely than trying to piecemeal individual deals. DC has the least core potential of all three. But it also provides the easiest turnaround solution because their core skate business isn’t as prevalent as Quik or roxy’s core biz is. Simply meaning, they can go mass distribution with the least blowback because when you fall out of favor with skaters, you’ve entered the point of no return, way more than with surfers. Payless, target, Walmart are likely future distribution channels for the brands. And yes, if those are the prospective markets, there is no reason to sponsor any athletes male or female, let alone pay them millions each.
You think holding shares in Quik, Volcom and Billabong are testament to your infinite industry knowledge? I hope you short sold…
Nope. Doesn’t make me any smarter than you or anymore. But unless the annual reports were falsified, those “facts” do not lie. No women’s division generated more money than the men’s.
I can’t link to the businessweek findings because it’s behind a paywall but some of the stats from that report are listed here: http://she-conomy.com/repor…
In regard to the increasing percentage of women surfers check here: http://www.roymorgan.com/fi…
I’ve showed you mine, you show me yours 😀
Lol. Please don’t get butt hurt in my response. Unless my reading comprehension failed me, I didn’t see a single fact stating that women buy more SIRF RETAIL product than men’s. Do women SPEND MORE in general? Of course. You wanna bet that more women buy kid’s cereal than men do? You wanna argue that more women open their wallets to buy that $60 boardshort for their kids than men do? Probably. You’ve simply provided facts to what economists have known since modern financials came into play – that women are spending money. But we’re not talking about who’s PAYING for shit. We’re talking about which category the money IS GOING TO. And FACT is that more men’s surfing products are purchased annually than women’s. That is why male surfers can be paid more than women’s in general. Geez. Business 101 there.
Your 20% women’s stat is laughable. That’s an AUSTRALIAN article, with Australian stats. I hate to inform you dear but the entire country’s population of Australia doesn’t even equal the population of the state of Califomia. A 20% increase in women’s surfing in Australia is not going to turn put a 180 on a surf business’s bottom line. The surf industry’s global financial value resides in the USA. A 20% increase in women’s participation in Australia is about as valid as using surf participation numbers by women in the Middle East or Asia. It’s a non-factor globally except for that specific region’s contribution to the global bottom line.
Sorry Liz. Try again.
While that is a stellar rebuttal (I’m particularly fond of the “dear”), I’m still not seeing any facts to support your side of the argument sweetheart. I will give extra points for responding to your own posts though.
You want me to provide numbers proving the large discrepancies between women’s surf wear and men’s surf wear revenue? You want me to spend unnecessary time as you did, trying to copy and paste numbers from financial reports? Please dear. I’m telling you that would be a waste of my time as well as yours. It is a fact. Accept it, use it as more knowledge gained free of charge by me. Take all the moral victory you want in me not wanting to spend the time to do so. I’m okay with it. Believe me. I know there is no women’s surf wear manufacturer or sub division that generates more revenue than their male counterpart. Do your own research and by all means…. don’t feel you have to post again to acknowledge my facts. Quik, Hurley, Volcom, rvca, billabong, oneill, rip curl. Not a single one dear.
Yeah. I have been in the lineup with more women than men — it’s happened any number of times actually. The difference is, fewer women than men choose to push further into the sport beyond surfing the easier breaks. So on bigger days, yeah, the balance is invariably more men than women. I’ve surfed with more women in the lineup than men, but I’ve also been the only woman out. Why that dynamic exists is a whole different story, but Keala’s recent comment about being told that girls can’t do shit is almost certainly relevent here.
Wow. Where are these spots where the women outnumber the men? You’ve indicated that perhaps they are easier breaks. Is it fair to suggest that they more surfers push themselves, the more refined equipment they will need? From trunks to wetsuits to fins, a quiver or boards down to wax. While a casual woman surfing a beginner break on a longboard or fun shape may not have to spend as much? The discussion in regards to my convo with Liz is which demographic influxes more cash into surfing – Men or Women? If you insist women, not only will I personally disagree but the financials facts state otherwise.
And I agree on Keala. Good on her! She proved that women can do anything men can. But as far as trying to validate why she doesn’t earn as much as Shane Dorian for surfing big waves, that argument has no substance.
Should women’s hig wave events get paid the same prize purses that men get? If the viewership numbers justify it. But before you talk about endemic surf brands not stepping up to sponsor women and their events, ask yourself why MAINSTREAM women’s only products or businesses don’t step up and do so? It’s becuase the returned exposure is not worth the investment. It’s mostly business and not bias, prejudice or discrimination.
Not necessarily. You looked at the price on a custom longboard lately? A lot of women are riding really nice boards. I live in the coldish water zone, so they’re buying suits regularly, bikinis regularly, apparel from surf brands regularly. Cute dresses from surfbrands. So they’re spending money.
Women give a shit that their wetsuit fits and is flattering and will spend money on that. They’ll spend money on a nice board that looks cool and works for them.
Do we buy fewer boards and less product? Hard to say. I see a lot of guys on beat-ass shortboards I would never let in my house, never mind ride. So IDK what you’re considering a typical dude. But I’m not an super special insider like you who gets to see all the secret numbers and shit.
Really, I just came here to answer your apparently rhetorical question. Yes, I have surfed an all-woman line-up more than once. It does happen and not just at shitty ass beginner spots where everyone’s on foamies.
You don’t need to be a super special insider. Just google any of your favorite brand’s annual reports. They will break down the numbers for you.
And I understand if you won’t divulge the spots. But I have surfed all over the world and yet to come across a spot – and I’m not talking a small, beginner break where there’s only 3 girls and 1 guy out total. I’m talking about a spot that can be checked up on say Surfline whether it be Salt Creek, uppers, lowers, doheney, Malibu, Uluwatu, mentawais, steamer lane, cottons, Ala Moana, Chuns Reef that has more women than men in the lineup. Not doubting you have encountered it. But if never even seen it close.
please lets don’t pretend that pro surfing isn’t totally subjective and judged, in part, on looks. totally different from traditional sports. (lebron’s team scores the most points, they win. doesn’t matter how “stylish” their shots look.) pro surfing’s more like figure skating than the NBA.
Lets also not pretend that success on the pro tour equals happiness/mental health. if you doubt that, refer to a certain legend from kauai.
this woman is talking about her own struggle to get it together, NOT alana blanchard and her ass.
I’m not referring to Cori’s struggles. This discussion started by a fellow commentor stating, “imagine if you work just as hard as the boys and your paycheck at a company was 1/4 of theirs or what if the sponsors told all the boys that they had to wear a banana hammock out in the contest in order to get paid… … Why is Alana Blanchard in those Reef Commercials during the tour event? (probably a swell person and all) but what does she have to do with pro surfing?”
I’m not stating anything for or against Cori NOR Alana. I’m stating the reason why there are pay discrepancies is because of the businesses related to their gender. There is no money is pro longboarding. That has more to do with why she can’t get sponsored versus that she’s a lesbian and doesn’t wear thongs.
And in regards to the aboves comments, NOBODY FORCES Alana to wear thongs. She chooses to wear them. If one wants to fight for true women’s rights, you also need to defend the girls who CHOOSE to wear skimpy bikinis. That not saying they have low self esteem. They become easy targets for feminists who say they are holding women’s movements back by doin so. Cori’s opinion pieces have been very one sided in the past. That is her right to do so and I’m not condemning it but endorsing her right to speak up. But I am providing my answer as to why there are differences in pay between the men and women. And it has less to do with looks and more to do with business models.
In regards to Lebron, he gets paid well cause he’s one of the greatest to ever play the game. Your whole NBA analogy stance confirms what I’ve been saying. Most of the financial reward is because you’re the best at what you do and not how you look. If not, ALANA WOULD STILL BE ON TOUR if it was just for her looks. She wasn’t judged on her looks. She didn’t perform well enough. Silvana Lima is not sponsorless just because of her looks or perhaps she’s a lesbian. She’s proven she didn’t have the total package to remain on tour. Johanne Defay is not unattractive to say the least. Why doesn’t she have any sponsors? Because no surf industry brands have money left in budgets. Dimity Stoyle? She fell off tour. Sage Erickson is regarded as one of the more attractive surfers on tour. She’s done provocative shoots before. Why doesn’t she have a major sponsor? The looks argument becomes less valid as does economics when you look at these examples presented. Would you agree?
I will guarantee you that Courtney Conologue, Lakey P and Tyler Wright make more money in endorsements than Alessa Quizon and Tati Weston Webb. They are all beautiful women. But Alessa has twice the amount of followers on social media and it’s safe to say that Alessa and Tati have “sexier” pictures and more “model” appeal than the “athletic” look that Tyler, LP and Courtney have. So how do you explain why the more successful athletes get paid more? That’s proof that your performance in competition ultimately triumphs over looks. You can’t use the plight of one individual’s career in what is truly – from a business perspective, an irrelevant category, as foundation for an argument that women are paid mostly on their looks or sexual preference.
There’s “no” money in women’s AND men’s pro longboarding just as there’s no real money in rollerblading, bodyboarding, skim boarding, darts, lawn bowling, croquet and competitive dingy sailing – even though millions of dollars are spent annually on the participant’s equipment and training. The same can be said for 90% of Olympic Games. Your stance in defense of Cori is like saying that a male powerlifter should be getting Wheaties and Gatorade money for winning a gold medal versus Usain Bolt. But fact is you sell millions more running show than you do powerlifting unitards and weight belts. Why is that so difficult to comprehend for people instead of bringing up discriminatory reasons for the discrepancies??
And most comments precisely proving her point.
Awww the little boys throwing out the hate. So privileged you don’t even notice how hard others have to fight against sexism and homophobia to even get to your ‘starting point’.
I heart Cori.
ps. trunks and surf utility belt by BetterKnown.
i say it almost daily. men are fucking morons. women are getting shit done while men scratch their nuts and act like they are in charge. i seem to remember cori as a voice against development in the carlsbad area. can’t think of one male surfer that spoke up. prob too busy trimming their beards.
chris murnane
Cori is legit as fuck. She’s not bitching about her surf career, she’s talking about how that career woke her up and got her moving against any number of fucked up things, including the MegaMall on the lagoon. Yes, she’s making it happen while the beard crew continues to try to play the industry game.
“Poor me! I’m white, I’m a woman, I live in California, and my family taught me to surf, all the time! It took years for me to heal! I’m gay.” Cry me a river.
I see her fighting a hell of a lot more than crying.
I forgot about that part, the part where she said she is advocating for human rights; that is cool, and certainly commendable. My comment stemmed from the perspective of poor people of color, who face real disadvantages. I understand women have it harder than men, in general, and that lgbt are not accepted, etc., etc. I was playing devil’s advocate. But really, a “not poor” white surfer from California saying she had a hard life because her parents divorced? Eh, I guess we all have our struggles and some have it worse than others. Anyway, I respect what she is doing and I am glad you pointed that out; that she is actually making a difference instead of just commenting on s website, like me.
Oh, I agree, there’s a spectrum of people who have rightful frustrations with the world and white coastal residents are among the least-wronged out there. I don’t sense that she’s one of the “poor me” types that deserves a swift kick for a narcissistic impulse for exaggerated self concern. In fact, she’s using her position of privilege–very carefully and thoughtfully, I might add–to really bring attention to fucked up things affecting people with less voice than her own. A bit of a white savior complex? Probably, but much less so and much more self aware than most of the trust-funded NGOs and erroneously-named “sustainability initiatives” emerging from La Jolla to LA.
Very well said.