Author Shan2k Posted June 2, 2007 Author Posted June 2, 2007 The actual number of sets doesn't really matter. There is simply a different set of rules for professional women's tennis based upon the physical differences in their bodies. The woman is working physically just as hard as the man by playing three sets. It is the same reason that in gymnastics there are different events for men and women, based on their body's capabilities. (example - uneven bars for women, one bar thing for men, sorry the event name escapes me.) But I thought we all were the same PERSON??? If you fight for equal pay, you do equal work! Treat each other as the same PERSON.
Trialbyfire Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 I just don't agree. What if Sales W starts to generate $100,000 in 60 hour within the next 5 year in addition, best of 3. Should she still get paid equal to the man? I thought this was a sport anyway. I guess this is no different from a man and woman having the same intense laboring position but he's doing more backbreaking work, yet they still get paid equally. I say give the women best of 5! You're not getting it. X Money deserves percentage of money out. If money in decreases, percentage is consistent but money out will be less.
champagne Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Like I said, in tennis the woman isn't working any less than the man. It is simply a matter of difference in their bodies, the same reason men and women don't compete against each other in the Olympics in track. Obviously male track athletes at that level are biologically capable of running faster that women are....but...when a woman runs an event, she may not be running as fast as the man, but she has run as hard. She is just as exhausted afterward and has put in just as much effort to win the race as the man.
alphamale Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 man, where's Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs when you need them?
Author Shan2k Posted June 2, 2007 Author Posted June 2, 2007 This is a sport. I say equal pay for equal work. regardless of who draws in more.
InsanityImpaired Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 This is a sport. I say equal pay for equal work. regardless of who draws in more. And it's not our fault that no one is interested in female football (soccer) or ice hockey. You are contradicting yourself already.
ilmw Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Like I said, in tennis the woman isn't working any less than the man. It is simply a matter of difference in their bodies, the same reason men and women don't compete against each other in the Olympics in track. Obviously male track athletes at that level are biologically capable of running faster that women are....but...when a woman runs an event, she may not be running as fast as the man, but she has run as hard. She is just as exhausted afterward and has put in just as much effort to win the race as the man. Ok... then I'll ask you the same question I asked earlier... Is it just Wimbledon..or do all the major Tennis Tournaments.. have the same Male 5 games. Woman 3.. If the other tournaments already do this... pay woman the same for playing less games... then what is the big deal... really. If woman are getting paid for playing less... GOOD FOR THEM... I do get what you are saying about the physical differences between male and female. Good example with gymnastics...
champagne Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Do you really think male pro tennis players want to begrudge their female counterparts 6% of the grand prize winnings? Do you think they have a problem with this? Do you think they are complaining about this? Honestly I'm pretty sure they're happy about it!
Author Shan2k Posted June 2, 2007 Author Posted June 2, 2007 Like I said, in tennis the woman isn't working any less than the man. It is simply a matter of difference in their bodies, the same reason men and women don't compete against each other in the Olympics in track. Obviously male track athletes at that level are biologically capable of running faster that women are....but...when a woman runs an event, she may not be running as fast as the man, but she has run as hard. She is just as exhausted afterward and has put in just as much effort to win the race as the man. Like I said..... I thought we all were the same PERSON??? If you fight for equal pay, you do equal work! Treat each other as the same PERSON. We are all equal, aren't we? That's what everyone (especially women) have been ranting about. I say follow through and don't contradict yourself.
champagne Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Ok... then I'll ask you the same question I asked earlier... Is it just Wimbledon..or do all the major Tennis Tournaments.. have the same Male 5 games. Woman 3.. If the other tournaments already do this... pay woman the same for playing less games... then what is the big deal... really. If woman are getting paid for playing less... GOOD FOR THEM... I do get what you are saying about the physical differences between male and female. Good example with gymnastics... It is standard of all professional tennis tournaments.
ilmw Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 You are contradicting yourself already. I'll think you will find that both female soccer and ice hockey is growing in popularity.. I actually worked at the 1999 Women's World Hockey Champions ships in Canada... the place was packed... as both sports gain in popularity.. more and more young girls want to play them.. more of them who want to play them.. want to watch them..their parents want to watch it... so I guess I have to disagree. It may never get to the level of interest as lets say UEFA Cup or the NHL... but to say they are not popular is ..wrong...
Author Shan2k Posted June 2, 2007 Author Posted June 2, 2007 Do you really think male pro tennis players want to begrudge their female counterparts 6% of the grand prize winnings? Do you think they have a problem with this? Do you think they are complaining about this? Honestly I'm pretty sure they're happy about it! DO you really think so? http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/17052007/58/wimbledon-haas-criticises-equal-pay.html
ilmw Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 It is standard of all professional tennis tournaments. Ok... so it is just Wimbledon... keeping up with the times then.... So what is the point of this thread again..?
alphamale Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 ... the place was packed... a crowd of 17 is hardly "packed"... as both sports gain in popularity.. more and more young girls want to play them.. more of them who want to play them.. want to watch them..their parents want to watch it... so I guess I have to disagree. the main problem with female based spectator sports is that men aren't interested in watching them and neither are women
InsanityImpaired Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 ilmw, I did not say the sports were impopular. Shan2k did (both quotes were from him, hence the statement of contradiction) . I have not heard of an female ice hockey player who is earning on the same level as the NHL pros. I have not heard of a female football (soccer) player who is making $200,000 a week I say equal pay for equal work. regardless of who draws in more. And as men are making that kind of money, women should be making that kind of money too, even if there were no interest in women playing hockey or football.
Author Shan2k Posted June 2, 2007 Author Posted June 2, 2007 Ok... so it is just Wimbledon... keeping up with the times then.... So what is the point of this thread again..? We are all the same PERSON??? If you fight for equal pay, you do equal work! Treat each other as the same PERSON.
Trialbyfire Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Shan2k, your arguments are illogical. You are mixing apples (payscale of the entertainment industry) and oranges (worker bee salary). It's like saying that actors should not be compensated while the industry is making billions. They should all be satisfied at worker bee salaries. Also, have you ever watched tennis? If you want to grind it down to work effort, women's tennis is much more grueling because it's more about rallying and finesse than brute strength. Men's tennis relies a lot on acing the opponent off the serve. Racquet stroke for racquet stroke per match falls to the women.
InsanityImpaired Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Well some don't, some do! Go figure.... You mean none of the women do - despite equal work. And I don't exactly hear a major outcry that it is evil. It is fair to assume, that you are not interested in equality; prize money (I seem like a broken record) for female tennis tournaments is considerably lower than for men's tournaments. And a lot of these tournaments for men are also played over the best of 3 sets (eg. Monte Carlo). And of course that falls on the ears of a deaf man....
alphamale Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Racquet stroke for racquet stroke per match falls to the women. hahaha thats ludicrous! its like saying womens tennis is harder cause they have to lug their breasts around while they're playing
Author Shan2k Posted June 2, 2007 Author Posted June 2, 2007 Lets say in the next 5 years women's tennis is not as popular as it is now. Should the women still get paid equally?
Trialbyfire Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 hahaha thats ludicrous! its like saying womens tennis is harder cause they have to lug their breasts around while they're playing As ludicrous as expecting the larger revenue generators get paid less...
champagne Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Like I said..... I thought we all were the same PERSON??? If you fight for equal pay, you do equal work! Treat each other as the same PERSON. We are all equal, aren't we? That's what everyone (especially women) have been ranting about. I say follow through and don't contradict yourself. Ha ha, when did I say that we were all the same person? I don't recall making that statement....and I'm not ranting about anything....you began this post ranting about how unfair it is that a women's champion is going to get a 6% pay raise this year. Anyhoo...... They are physiologically different. They are doing the same work for their bodies. they are equal as human beings. Just because a man is physiologically different doesn't mean that he is superior to the woman. To base the pay on how many sets are played really doesn't make sense because a guy could win in three straight sets, totally wipe out his opponent quickly, and have spent 45 minutes on the court. In the women's final, the women could be playing a tie-breaker set, and end up playing for three sets, and end up playing for an hour and a half to two hours to win. That's how it is in tennis. So....it's not fair to base it on the number of sets played. Seriously. I played varsity tennis in high school and I love watching the game.
Trialbyfire Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Lets say in the next 5 years women's tennis is not as popular as it is now. Should the women still get paid equally? No. If it's based on percentage of revenue generation, then No.
InsanityImpaired Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Lets say in the next 5 years women's tennis is not as popular as it is now. Should the women still get paid equally? Makes no difference according to you. Equal pay for equal work. So why alter the argument? I say equal pay for equal work. regardless of who draws in more.
Recommended Posts