Korean Job Discussion Forums

[freethought]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/tennis/02/22/bc.ten.wimbledon.equalp.ap/index.html

This has been a long standing issue in the tennis world, and I was with the All England Club in standing against upping the money for women.

I'm about as progressive as it gets on every issue, but I think there are serious issues with this decision, and I also think feminist who stand for equal pay for equal work should be against this.

In order to win men have to play more, do more work, often times WAY more work than women. If they have to do more work, they should be paid more, pure and simple.

However, if women bring in more more for the tournament, then perhaps there's grounds for this move, but as it stands, and based on the info in this article, it violates a fundamental feminist principle, and anyone who claims to support the equal pay for equal work should have problems with this decision.

[kermo]

This depends on how you define "equal work." If it takes me three years to write a novel, and it takes you six months, should I get paid less? Just because the women are playing shorter sets, or running less on the court in a doubles game, doesn't mean that the tennis court sells fewer tickets.

If you're interested in literal equality, consider changing the following:

-making the tickets for the women's games cheaper because they're expending less energy

-making women play more singles or sets of five games instead of three

-making the prize money equal between men and women (seriously, why should this be different?)

[freethought]

you've essentially helped me make my point. There are all kinds of things that can be done that would justify giving equal pay, but unless the women bring in a disproportionate amount of revenue (ticket sales, ads etc), then this is not equal pay for equal work, it's equal pay for unequal work.

If you take two ESL teachers, one male and one female. Both have equal qualifications and experience. Both teach the same level of classes, but the male has to teach a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 classes. The female has to teach a min of 2 and a max of 3 classes. But both get paid the same amount. Would you(whoever is reading this) agree to that? I sure as hell wouldn't.

[blaseblasphemener]

The men should refuse to play any more sets than the women.

[RACETRAITOR]

Okay, I have an even better question: Do people really deserve to get paid for playing tennis?

[kermo]

[kermo]

[jinju]

1. Men are the draws, women the afterthought. Sorry, NOBODY is going to go to Wimbledon to watch Sharapova over Federer.

2. Make the women play 5 sets

[freethought]

[Novernae]

The work in sport is not only the game. I would bet that both sexes put in equal amounts of training time.

[kermo]

[freethought]

you're not reading things clearly.

I said equal pay is FINE if there are issues like women drawing larger crowds or generating more money.

As for greater skill, yes, men are necessarily more skillful. Hitting a ball travelling at 120 MPH as compared to 80 MPH takes more skill, strength etc. The ability and skill required to not only hit a ball but to keep it in play at that rate requires more skill. It's that simple. Have you ever played tennis? Have you ever watched tennis?

[kermo]

Okay, I've done some thinking, and I've come down on the side of "free booze/more pay for the girls" in the face of perceived inequality. I don't want to be one of those people who makes feminism a dirty word. I don't hate men, yada yada yada.

In the case of female tennis players, I've argued that they should be paid the same. However, I haven't argued that women who are professional basketball or hockey players should be paid the same. Why? They don't draw much of a crowd. They put in a terrific effort, they play games that are just as long as the boys' (maybe not as many games per season, because the leagues are small) but the market couldn't support the sort of pay that male athletes in those sports draw.
It's fair, but it's not practical.

In the case of "ladies' night," I've argued that it's cool to give free booze to women. I have nothing against the idea of a "men's night" for booze as well, but I suspect that a bar would find it more of a burden than a boon. Men can (and would) drink a lot more, and women (i.e., paying customers) wouldn't flock to a place where guys were likely to be out of their gourds if they had to pay for the privilege.
It's fair, but it's not practical.

There. Can someone take this "femi-nazi" badge off me now, please?

[jinju]

The "draw" argument is bogus. Women piggyback on the men game's popularity. Hold the women's and men's wimbledons a month apart and the women wouldnt draw half what they "draw". The women's game is an afterthought, and would be just as with any women's sport in the world, nobody would come to watch. People come to watch the men, and stick around a bitt o check out the women, or settle for women's match tickets if the men's match is sold out.

[kermo]