The Same Pay For Half The Work

27 06 2007

Wimbledon has started, and with it two months of tennis mania, culminating with the US open in late August. Highlights at SW19 this year apparently are that Centre Court has no roof, Federer is gunning for his umpteenth title, and for the first time in history equal prize money is being offered for the women and mens tournament. Which frankly I think is bloody unfair to the men, and a classic case of the organizers trying to be PC about things. Cue the feminists with their burning torches, pitchforks, tar and feathers.

Today, the world is supposed to work on the whole concept of equality. Irrespective of gender or race. So how is it that women in tennis can get the same amount of money for playing a maximum of three sets of tennis, which is the equivalent of the minimum number of sets in the men’s game. Isn’t a case of getting the same pay for half the work? If they want the same amount of money, make them play in the same format as men. At least then, they’re entitled to the same wages.

I think its madness that people [i.e. the organizers] are actually willing to pay the same amount for a game that ends in an hour, compared to one thats at least 2 hours. Where’s the value for money? After all, watching a tennis match is about entertainment, right? And I obviously want more value for my entertainment dollar. Yeah, I’d like to watch a match between two major stars like Henin and Sharapova, but if its over in an hour, what next? It doesn’t beat the intensity of match like what happened yesterday between Henman and Moya. Now that was a fantastic match. 5 sets, 2 days, 13-11 final set, over 4 hours on court. They deserve what they earn. But, can you recall a women’s game that lasted 4 hours? Nope, you can’t because it’s over inside 2 hours.

Looking at it from an effort-to-reward ratio perspective, the women have it made. You could say its a case of more buck-for-bang. And I know there’s a whole bunch of people out there who’ll say that, “Women don’t have the stamina/endurance of men. They can’t play a full 5 set match regularly.” If that’s the case, they’re not really equal are they? In which case, why should they be paid equally if they’re not equal?

If you’re going to harp on equality and all that, then you have to be true to the word. You can’t selectively apply the rules as you see fit. Frankly, I see this as a PR stunt by the Wimbledon organizers to maintain their place in the spotlight. Fine, its their prerogative to decide how to allocate the prize money. But I just hope this doesn’t start a trend at the other tournaments. Otherwise, the men will be the ones who lose out. And if they do make a major issue of out this, you can be sure the feminists will be waiting to scream “bloody murder! suppression of female initiative! equality! blah blah blah!”

For all you feminists out there, you can’t claim equality unless you’re willing to play on the same level. If you can’t put in the same level of work, you’re not entitled to the same amount of pay.

Maybe its time to start a male-inist movement, the male equivalent of feminism, to fight for equal opportunities for men. Any takers?

Sidenote: Does anyone know what is the antonym of feminism?




2 responses

27 06 2007
Ram H. Viswanathan

Don’t mean to nitpick, but doesn’t the tennis grand slam season start with the French Open?

30 06 2007

Oh shit yeah! I got my Opens mixed up. Thanks for the correction… 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: