When French tennis-player Gilles Simon says men should receive more prize money than women at Wimbledon (Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Guardian) he was attacked by the usual suspects - including of course some of the women tennis players.
Wimbledon changed the rules in 2007 so that men and women get equal pay. So what's the problem?
Some like Simon say women should get paid less because their tennis is less entertaining and less interesting but the problem with this argument is that it is subjective.
However, if you look at the amount of time they are on court - there is a clear difference. In Wimbledon 2012, from the 4th round onwards, men in the singles tournament played 55 sets while women in their singles tournament played 36 sets - effectively 33% fewer sets.
Is this what the anti-male feminists mean when they talk about the gender pay gap and equality. That women get paid the same for less work.
As well as an argument about whether female tennis players should get paid the same or not as men, it is also the interpretation that feminists make. Part of their problem with their gender pay gap arguments, they are not interested in the contributions that men and women make as individuals - they want equality whatever the contribution.
Posted by Skimmington