Equality

[DeletedUser31931]

So I just want to focus on female/male equality and one argument that is used in the centre of the whole equality argument thing. Tennis. Women get awarded the same amount of prize money as men although they only play 3 sets when men play 5 sets (this is referring to the ATP world tour.) Is this just?

Yes: Women are weaker and therefore the ratio of strength output (determined by power/num of sets) equals out to men and thus they should be paid the same amount

No: Although a woman is biologically weaker she can train to get stronger and although strongest woman wouldn't be as strong as the strongest man that is just natural selection so tough luck to women.

What are you views?

P.S. Before someone has a go at me for not stating my side I'm kind of neutral as both sides have good points I do tend to lead slightly towards the against women having equal pay.

Finally, keep it clean no sexist remarks etc. and please state evidence to back your wild claims or any of your claims for that matter, also I want this kept to tennis, if you want to discuss something else then set up another thread for it, don't use this one.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Well seeing as there are thousands of jobs, sports positions and the like where women are paid far less than men it makes a change for them to be getting more for less. So men do two more sets big deal I am pretty certain that men were earning far more than women in tennis until very recently anyway.

Seeing as tennis has had as far as I know a 5 set system for quite a while and I also suspect womens doing 3 dates back about just as far its probably tradition.

You could argue the women have it far tougher as there is not so much of a chance of comeback, you lose 2 sets your done whereas men have a a chance due to 3 wins needed. If you mess up in womens your done far faster than in mens, so men get more opportunities and forgiving on mistakes made. Ergo its an advantage to be a man in tennis still.

A male body can sustain longer be stronger etc so I have no problem with them being pushed longer to use it and the male female ratio in tennis sets id say it very fair.Men also still get far more in sponsorship deals etc so my heart dosnt exactly bleed for them.

I couldn't care less about tennis tbh so cant add much more if you want to restrict it to just tennis as an example.

 

[DeletedUser]

Zemmy, could you give me a credible source as to where you heard that women are paid less then men in tennis? There was an item on QI a few series ago which said the exact opposite. Please provide citations.

 

[DeletedUser]

No: Although a woman is biologically weaker she can train to get stronger and although strongest woman wouldn't be as strong as the strongest man that is just natural selection so tough luck to women.

The amount of work a woman would put into it to break biological barriers and become as strong as a man should be rewarded.
I say: both sexes do their best. Because one sex's best is sometimes lower than the other's (and this can go both ways), it does not mean they should not be rewarded equally for the same amount of effort, dedication etc.

 

[DeletedUser]

Sports is about entertainment value. If more people prefer to watch men hitting balls, then men should obtain more money. Meh, each to their own... I would far prefer to watch women slamming those hairy balls with a paddle.

There, was that sexist enough for you? *smirk*

 

[DeletedUser]

Zemmy, since you haven't provided evidence for your original claim, I must point out this transcript from Series 7 Episode 7 of QI;

Stephen Fry

And finally, one last fanfare to unfairness. What is unfair about the prize money at Wimbledon?
Jack Dee
[presses buzzer, which plays a wolf-whistle]
Stephen
Yes?
Jack
They only give it to you if you're really, really good at tennis.
Stephen
Damnably unfair.
Sandi Toksvig
Er, nothing.
Stephen
Really?
Ronni Ancona
Not any more.

Forfeit: Klaxons sound. Viewscreens flash the word "NOTHING" ​

​

Stephen
No it's damn unfair. Women get more money for playing than men.
Ronni
Oh, per set you mean. Are you talking per…
Stephen
Men play more tennis and get less money. I'll show you how it goes. When it started in 1884, the ladies' champion won a 20 guinea silver flower basket… aah… while the men got a 30 guinea gold trophy. By 2006, 625,000 for Amélie Mauresmo who played 142 games, versus just £30,000 more for Roger Federer who played 202 games. And the best women were earning more than the best men because the shorter matches allowed them to compete in both doubles tournaments as well as the singles.
The rate per game tell the story. 2005, the final eight women earned an average of £1,432 per game against the men's 993.
Ronni
How much do they win now, if they win?
Stephen
It 's equal for the first prize…
Ronni
Is it half a million?
Alan Davies
It 's about three-quarters of a million pounds now.
Stephen
… the women's champion gets the same prize as the men's champion, but the men's champion plays a lot more tennis.
Sandi
Yeah but to be fair, the women have got to come off and make the tea as well.
Stephen
Women get more from sponsorship, oddly enough.
Ronni
And also, half a million, that's not that much when you consider half will go to tax, 15% will go to their agent, then they've got to buy all their balls and they've got to buy the sticky stuff to wrap round the racquet, that's very expensive…
Stephen
So do the men…
Ronni
Then it's the travelcard, that's zone six…
Stephen
So do the men.
Ronni
They're left with about one pound fifty after all that.
Stephen
Anyway, now that male and female tennis players get the same prize money, it's arguably unfair to men who work harder and longer for less money overall.

Zemmy, now that I've provided my evidence, could you please provide yours?

 

[DeletedUser]

Hehe, yeah i've seen that recycled argument. Only two tennis matches provide equal "prizes" to men and women, regardless of seating or ratings popularity.

Arguing pay "fairness" in tennis is a complete disconnect and, to be quite friggin' honest, a red herring posed by male chauvinists who find it a great distraction from the greater issue, which is that, overwhelmingly, women in the workforce are paid substantially less than men for the exact same work.

Zemelci, you cannot have a reasonable discussion about this "red herring" without stating what promoted this herring in the first place. It was created decades ago, in 1972, at Wimbleton at the height of women's liberation, when one woman who won Wimbleton said she would not come back the next year unless the prizes for women were equal to the men's prizes.

The argument was an attack on women's liberation as a whole, attempting to use Wimbleton as an example of why women are paid less in the workplace... i.e., it is an attempt to stereotype women as less productive.

Oddly, this red herring is still being used to harangue women and justify unfair wage practices.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes HS, but Zemmy's premise for the thread was tennis, and that is what I was disproving in my last post.
When it comes to the greater problem, yes, I agree. Women should be paid equal to men (provided that they do the same amount of work, otherwise, as Stephen Fry stated in my last post, it's unfair).

 

[DeletedUser15057]

Outside of the majors, the men mostly play 3 sets, same as the women, on the world circuit.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, if u want to pose this in context of just the two tennis matches, "Prizes" are not paychecks. Players participate in contests to win prizes. Some buy one ticket, some buy two. Some eat 10 hotdogs, some eat a hundred. Some throw darts at balloons, some throw themselves into a pool and swim laps.

Prizes run the gamut, few differentiate between the sexes, because prizes exist to entice players to compete for free. Only the winners get a prize. The rest have to pay for their bus fare back home.

Contests are not jobs, they're merely contests. It's not like professional football, basketball, hockey, baseball, or ballet (all of which look the same to me). Some sports provide you salaries, contracts. Tennis provides you nothing. You enter into a contest through sponsorship (you have to pay money to enter into Tennis contests), wear sponsored outfits, carry around labels affixed to your ass, and hope to win so you can not only get bragging rights, a prize, some cash, but also more sponsorships.

Indiannapolis 500 and poker competitions are another example. The prize is the same. Whether you're a man or a woman, you pay to compete. The prize is posed as an incentive to get people to participate. If the prize isn't good enough, you don't get the best competitors and your contest loses credibility.

Wimbleton had that dilemma. When the #1 women's tennis player stated she would not compete in their tennis competition until the prizes were equal to the men's competition, Wimbleton had to ante' up or they were going to lose credibility as the supreme tennis competition. Seriously, if the best player doesn't compete, how can you claim to be the supreme tennis event? (btw, other major women's tennis stars also agreed they would not compete unless the prizes were fixed, so it wasn't just one female player. But yes, she got the ball rolling and, because of her, women's tennis has gained greater recognition).

 

[DeletedUser31931]

Women should be paid equal to men (provided that they do the same amount of work, otherwise, as Stephen Fry stated in my last post, it's unfair).

But how do you define the equal amount of work? And who gets the job in the first place and why?

Here is a link that defines the amount of money paid per round victory. Technically women earn the same as men (wait for it) because in one match they will earn the same amount as men. Sure playing less set's will let them play more but in singles competition they will earn the same amount, and about doubles it is possible to do doubles and singles if you are a man it justs takes careful time planning and a lot of stamina.

I realise this is yahoo, but it's one of the only things I could find that compared them side by side.

http://news.yahoo.com/prize-money-2012-wimbledon-mens-womens-singles-players-163500890--ten.html

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, if u want to pose this in context of just the two tennis matches, "Prizes" are not paychecks. Players participate in contests to win prizes. Some buy one ticket, some buy two. Some eat 10 hotdogs, some eat a hundred. Some throw darts at balloons, some throw themselves into a pool and swim laps.

Prizes run the gamut, few differentiate between the sexes, because prizes exist to entice players to compete for free. Only the winners get a prize. The rest have to pay for their bus fare back home.

Contests are not jobs, they're merely contests. It's not like professional football, basketball, hockey, baseball, or ballet (all of which look the same to me). Some sports provide you salaries, contracts. Tennis provides you nothing. You enter into a contest through sponsorship (you have to pay money to enter into Tennis contests), wear sponsored outfits, carry around labels affixed to your ass, and hope to win so you can not only get bragging rights, a prize, some cash, but also more sponsorships.

Indiannapolis 500 and poker competitions are another example. The prize is the same. Whether you're a man or a woman, you pay to compete. The prize is posed as an incentive to get people to participate. If the prize isn't good enough, you don't get the best competitors and your contest loses credibility.

Wimbleton had that dilemma. When the #1 women's tennis player stated she would not compete in their tennis competition until the prizes were equal to the men's competition, Wimbleton had to ante' up or they were going to lose credibility as the supreme tennis competition. Seriously, if the best player doesn't compete, how can you claim to be the supreme tennis event? (btw, other major women's tennis stars also agreed they would not compete unless the prizes were fixed, so it wasn't just one female player. But yes, she got the ball rolling and, because of her, women's tennis has gained greater recognition).

All very interesting, but I don't really see your point.

But how do you define the equal amount of work?

Are you seriously asking me to define the word 'Equal'?

And who gets the job in the first place and why?

Whoever is the most competent. It's that simple.

Here is a link that defines the amount of money paid per round victory. Technically women earn the same as men (wait for it) because in one match they will earn the same amount as men. Sure playing less set's will let them play more but in singles competition they will earn the same amount, and about doubles it is possible to do doubles and singles if you are a man it justs takes careful time planning and a lot of stamina.

I realise this is yahoo, but it's one of the only things I could find that compared them side by side.

http://news.yahoo.com/prize-money-2012-wimbledon-mens-womens-singles-players-163500890--ten.html

Right, I have no idea what you just said as I neither watch, play, or understand tennis. Could you simplify for us non-sporting plebs?
Oh and, what is yur reaction to my earlier point, as proved by QI?

 

[DeletedUser31931]

Are you seriously asking me to define the word 'Equal'?

Yes. Yes I am, are you saying they need to play the same amount of tennis or the same amount of matches.

Whoever is the most competent. It's that simple.

And what if it's a man or a women of the same competence? What happens then?

Right, I have no idea what you just said as I neither watch, play, or understand tennis. Could you simplify for us non-sporting plebs?
Oh and, what is yur reaction to my earlier point, as proved by QI?

I am saying that QI is working on the basis that the women do the doubles and the singles whilst the men (due to time constraints etc. from having longer matches) can only do singles tournament. What if Maria Sharapova can't be bothered to do singles and doubles. She will then just do singles and earn the same amount if she wins, also if the man is fit enough and wants to do it enough then he could theoritically do both tournaments.

 

[DeletedUser28032]

And what if it's a man or a women of the same competence? What happens then?

Then the man goes to the mens tennis match and the Woman goes to the womans tennis match, Unless they're in a mixed doubles game against one another they'll never come into direct competition against one another so it doesn't mater.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes. Yes I am, are you saying they need to play the same amount of tennis or the same amount of matches.

The same amount of tennis, obviously.

And what if it's a man or a women of the same competence? What happens then?

Braet gave you your answer.

I am saying that QI is working on the basis that the women do the doubles and the singles whilst the men (due to time constraints etc. from having longer matches) can only do singles tournament. What if Maria Sharapova can't be bothered to do singles and doubles. She will then just do singles and earn the same amount if she wins, also if the man is fit enough and wants to do it enough then he could theoritically do both tournaments.

Methinks you mean; 'theoretically'. Anyway, yes, but that still doesn't mean anything except that your original statement of men being paid more than women is untrue.

 

[DeletedUser]

All very interesting, but I don't really see your point.

Nah, you just want to keep this debate going. hehe


The point is, Wimbledon is a contest, it's not a job. Prizes are posed by the contest sponsors as a means to bring in the talent. In 1973, they raised the prize for women because it was the only means to pull in the best women's tennis players. They did so to ensure they remained the premier tennis competition in the world.

I.e., it had nothing to do with equality, it was purely business... the business of Wimbledon.

Male chauvinists have attempted to use it as a means to argue that women do not warrant equal pay in the workforce, with the allegation that women perform less (as in 3 sets instead of men who perform 5 sets per). This is a red herring, a false argument.

 

[DeletedUser]

Nah, you just want to keep this debate going. hehe

Oh no, Hellstromm's telepathic...

The point is, Wimbledon is a contest, it's not a job. Prizes are posed by the contest sponsors as a means to bring in the talent. In 1973, they raised the prize for women because it was the only means to pull in the best women's tennis players. They did so to ensure they remained the premier tennis competition in the world.

I.e., it had nothing to do with equality, it was purely business... the business of Wimbledon.

Male chauvinists have attempted to use it as a means to argue that women do not warrant equal pay in the workforce, with the allegation that women perform less (as in 3 sets instead of men who perform 5 sets per). This is a red herring, a false argument.

Exactly. Although I was not proposing that women should be paid less then men. Zemmy merely made a false point, and I corrected him on it.
I whole-heartedly agree that women and men should be paid the same amount.

 

[DeletedUser31931]

Then the man goes to the mens tennis match and the Woman goes to the womans tennis match, Unless they're in a mixed doubles game against one another they'll never come into direct competition against one another so it doesn't mater.

But if say we asking outside of tennis ( I know I restricted it in the parameters but since I asked the question I would like an answer.


Also tiger, please state where I said that men were paid more than women because I seem to remember only stating that they got paid the same. If I didn't say that then that is a typo on my part and I apologise.


And I do agree that women should in the end get paid the same amount as men. (I have had this argument countless times with plenty of people and I can argue both sides.)

 

[DeletedUser]

But if say we asking outside of tennis ( I know I restricted it in the parameters but since I asked the question I would like an answer.

You pick up a D6, and number the candidates, before rolling...

Also tiger, please state where I said that men were paid more than women because I seem to remember only stating that they got paid the same. If I didn't say that then that is a typo on my part and I apologise.

You said it in your original post, but then you edited it (after you realized that you were wrong and that I was right).

 

[DeletedUser31931]

Women get paid the same amount of prize money as men

There, please read what I said. (I originally put payed but changed it to paid before you go pointing out the edit.) I was saying that women were paid equal. What was you argument again? I never originally said that men were paid more.


Also since the Tennis discussion has run its course I would now like to open the debating floor to all issues of equality in pay or whether you get picked for a job etc.

Here's a good question: should we enforce a policy of at least 50% women on a executive board of a company? (I've probably spelt it wrong, please tell me if I have.)