WIMBLEDON SHOWS WHAT MODERN-DAY FEMINISTS THINK EQUALITY MEANS

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

Comments

[dave]

The fact that this was ever allowed and continues shows us our governments are corrupt and full of Misandry, as it the Sporting bodies. It would NEVER happen if it was the other way around.

[John Kimble]

"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."

Well I suppose it is subjective, but the viewing figures clearly show more people preferring the men's game to the women's.

Either they should pay competitors fair prize money for their contributions or alternatively they should introduce absolute equality at Wimbledon and abandon both men and women's events, instead having one event that anyone can enter. That would certainly solve this problem.

[Paul]

Another factor is the difficulty of the work. Women players only have to play against other women, while men have a much harder task trying to beat other men. There is much greater depth in the men's game and it takes much more work and of a more intense nature for a man to succeed. If you had to measure the energy expended by Roger Federer in winning the men's title against that expended by Serena Williams in winning the women's title, you would find Roger had to work much harder.

[Prosperoid]

I remember around 10 or so years ago commentators, sports journalists and the like were actively forecasting the demise of men's tennis, because the male game was seen to be too serve and volley based with no long rallies. These people seemed quite pleased at the idea, and were even suggesting female players should get paid more for winning championships than men because their game was seen as more entertaining and a bigger pull for sponsors.

Now once again it is men's tennis that is the big pull, and many of these commentators are silent on the relative merits of the men's and women's game. No doubt any who say men should get paid more for playing in a more demanding and commercially lucrative sport will be demounced as chauvinsts, while many of these misandrists secretly wish for the return of the "good old days" of "Pistol" Pete Sampras serving and volleying opponents into submission, so they can demand higher prize money for their precious women.

[Groan]

Its simple. Women should play the same number of sets.