The wrongly portrayed female 'equal pay' issue getting dafter and dafter

[tw1ggy5]

Men are generally stronger than women, yes. But that doesn't mean men's tennis is "better" than women's tennis when both play their own gender. The assumption it is is rather sexist and patriarchal in itself.

The argument being made was that men were better AT tennis, that they would win in a match between the two. Not your strawman, no ones said the mens game is inherently better that I can see.

Id say irrelevant of gender, whoever draws the most revenue is gonna get paid the most. In tennis this happens to be men, so they get paid more.

Merging the two games and playing a mixed tournament where everyone plays to 5 sets is an option, however that would in general mean less women being in the game at the higher levels. Which Id say was a bad thing.

 

[kained&able]

Hang on, I've heard a fair few people say they actually prefer watching women's tennis because it isn't just ace after ace, as a result is more tactical and has more rallies, and therefore is found a more interesting game by many.

Men are generally stronger than women, yes. But that doesn't mean men's tennis is "better" than women's tennis when both play their own gender. The assumption it is is rather sexist and patriarchal in itself.

err i perfer womens tennis as i have said. And not its not sexist you put the top 10 womens playersagainst the top 10 men and i bet it will be all but an all male white wash. So the men are better.


dave

 

[Agent Sparrow]

The argument being made was that men were better AT tennis, that they would win in a match between the two. Not your strawman, no ones said the mens game is inherently better that I can see.

It's the implication. While men play men and women play women isn't it irrelevant if one is stronger than the other? It's only a factor if they play each other, which they don't.

And in re: to the rest of your post I have to say I was quite interested to read Ann O'Neemus's post...

* Mens' game last longer than womens' game: I saw Martina Navratilova on Jonathan Ross, and she said that the women had offered to play the same number of sets (five) as the men, instead of the current number of sets the women play (three), which is currently one of the arguments against prize money parity. But apparently, the Lawn Association refused to accept that the women should play the same number of sets. It's not the women being too wimpy and not wanting to play long games the same as the men, it's the Wimbledon authorities who are refusing to allow them to do so.

The logic goes:

15-love to the Lawn Association: You don't deserve the same prize money as men, because their game is longer!

15-all, women even up the game: Okay, we'll play five sets, give us equal pay.

30-15 to the Lawn Association: No, we don't want you to do that.

30-all the women even it up again: But honestly, if that's your argument against equal prize money, we're willing and able to play longer games, just let us do it.

Foul by the Lawn Association: *the match stalls as the Lawn Association hits the net with it's serve, can't get it's game (i.e. a logical argument) off the ground, as women keep reiterating, 'But we're willing to pay five sets, just give us equal prize money', and then play is abandoned due to rain (i.e. Lawn Association can't develop a counter argument to the women so goes 'La la la, can't hear you, women don't deserve equal prize money because they play shorter matches', but the rain is a useful distraction and we can just put this debate to one side and pretend it's not happening).

Sounds like as with a lot of sports, women don't even have the opportunity to tackle some of "they play for less time/in different circumstances " arguments.

 

[tw1ggy5]

So were just totally ignoring the fact that the mens game bring in more revenue then?

 

[tw1ggy5]

It's the implication.

No ones said that and its just a strawman u've tried to bring in then?

 

[kained&able]

So were just totally ignoring the fact that the mens game bring in more revenue then?

Not all of us. I've brought it up and pretty sure im not the only one. But the skill and game lengh are slightly easier for epople to fight about so ignored for now i guess.


dave

 

[tw1ggy5]

No i meant Agent Sparrow, when its a question of cash paid to players the revenues generated by those players seems the obvious point of comparison, bigger pot of money, slice of the revenue pie is larger.

Especially being as game length totally varies due to the nature of tennis, a male player can win in 3 straight sets in an hour and a half. A female player in comparison could win 2-1 in three sets and be playing for more than 2 hours, longer than the male player. Or the female player could be done in under an hour with the male player going to 5 sets and nearly taking 4 hours. But tennis players arent paid by the hour.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

No i meant Agent Sparrow, when its a question of cash paid to players the revenues generated by those players seems the obvious point of comparison.

You could argue the point that until women's sport is regarded as equal then that's going to happen. You place more importance on one thing, it will get more money.

And I don't think it's a strawman to just question why are we looking at men being able to beat women at tennis as a criterion when they don't play each other.

 

[The Sick Anchor]

amazing that people will argue like fuck to get rich women on parity with rich men and from a position of wanting 'equality', job done if achieved?

meanwhile a quarter of the UK's population live below the poverty line

 

[kained&able]

thats beacuse venus williams gets a camera. Dorris down the street doesn't.



dave

 

[Neva]

Damn right Sick Anchor. I don't think I've ever heard anyone on this forum ever speak out against poverty or the injustices of a capitalist society before. We're lucky your around.

 

[Termite Man]

You could argue the point that until women's sport is regarded as equal then that's going to happen. You place more importance on one thing, it will get more money.

And I don't think it's a strawman to just question why are we looking at men being able to beat women at tennis as a criterion when they don't play each other.

But then it's a bit of a pisstake if you know your better at your "job" than someone else but and then they get paid the same amount as you . If we're going to say people should be judged on their ability to do their job , then the people who are better should recieve the higher pay .
Men and Women don't play each other at tennis but if men are better why should women then get the same amount !

 

[Sweaty Betty]

But then it's a bit of a pisstake if you know your better at your "job" than someone else but and then they get paid the same amount as you . If we're going to say people should be judged on their ability to do their job , then the people who are better should recieve the higher pay .
Men and Women don't play each other at tennis but if men are better why should women then get the same amount !

Exactly..women have come along way in their game to match the men, but the fitness levels required to sustain a five set match would cause a divide in the womens game, i think it would do more harm to the womens game than good.....

 

[Streathamite]

Didn't Billie Jean King beat that bloke to show that women could beat men at tennis a few years back?

his name was bobby riggs, and the game came at his instigitaion, as part of his campaign to show the two weren't equal