Male Matters Author
GENDER VIOLENCE
...It Makes Some Feminists Want a World Without Men...
...But what about women's violence? If feminists (and the media) don't take women's violence seriously, why should men take women's opinions seriously? After all, according to ideological feminists' own definition of hate crimes, violence is merely an opinion acted out, a view expressed by behavior.
Sexual Harassment
"With this I will manipulate your little male brain." But all power carries a price tag.
TENNIS REVEALS DISHONESTY OF FEMINIST BELIEFS
By remaining silent on women's tennis -- where the women can get equal pay for unequal work -- feminists expose dishonesty about the gender wage gap.
By Jerry A. Boggs
Ideological feminists say they believe in the sexes' equal pay for equal work. If they truly believed this, they would, it seems to me, at least make a show of arguing that in major tennis tournaments, the female players should do one of two things:
Receive less prize money than the men because the women perform unequal work (they play only the best of three sets compared to the men’s best of five, receiving 100 percent of men's pay for just 66 percent of men's work).
Or play the same number of sets as the men do — perform equal work for their equal pay.
Instead, feminists say nothing about this gender inequality except to insist that female players have equal "entertainment value." When I unscientifically tested out the entertainment value among my friends, most of them, female friends included, said they prefer to watch tennis played by men, as they do with many other sports such as basketball, football, and baseball. Some suggested that most of the female tennis players' entertainment value is derived from the beauty/glamor power possessed by such players as the attractive Maria Sharapova. (Women's beauty power means that while most people may prefer to watch males in sports contests, they prefer to watch females in beauty contests.) The "entertainment value" may also stem from the belief of some people that women's tennis is more exciting because their performance expectations of female players is lower. When some of the women play as well as some of the men, it can seem more exciting, especially to the casual tennis viewer, because this level of female playing was not expected.
By citing only the "entertainment value," ideological feminists reveal that they believe also in equal pay for unequal work. That's no different, really, from believing in unequal pay for equal work. While feminists claim to oppose working women's unequal pay for equal work, their less-than-serious attention to the sexes' tennis prize money endorses the concept of more work for equal pay for male tennis players. It also illustrates how these feminists, even as they complain that men undervalue women's work, can undervalue men's work.
"...[T]he women, who play three-set matches to the men's best-of-five encounters, make more money per game than the men, and at last year's tournament the top 10 women earned 4 per cent more prizemoney than the top 10 men, as they felt more able to play in the doubles and mixed doubles events, as well." -Tim Phillips, the chairman of the All England Club, according to Australia's The Age. He should have known better than to take on "the ladies," who have behind them the full force of feminists, the media, and just about everyone else. He should know that it's not a matter of equality or what's fair, but of what women believe they will get if they complain.
By remaining mostly silent on the tennis-pay issue, feminists are also at odds with their belief that women are as capable of handling combat as men are. (Many women are indeed as capable. For the record, I believe the military should present a single standard for physical fitness tests, and send all who cut it to the combat front. If only one woman for every 20 men meets the physical qualifications, so be it; send her. The men will respect her instead of resent her for being in the military as member of a privileged class allowed in under a lowered standard and allowed to compete with the men on equal terms for higher rank while avoiding equal risk. See "Women, Too, Should Be in Combat.")
If feminists believe women can cope as well as men with the incredible rigor demanded by combat fighting, then they are forced to believe female tennis players can handle the far less rigor of tennis on a par with the male players, and that the women can play the best of five sets, just like the men. By failing to argue this position in the media as they do all their other equality issues, they open themselves up to yet another charge of stacking the deck for women, of wanting women to have their cake and eat it too, of creating gender double standards, of deliberately alienating the sexes….
If the men want equal work on the court, perhaps the best way to achieve it -- since they would never be allowed to play only the best of three (in major tournaments) -- is to proclaim loudly and often that women are not capable of playing five sets. Then they can sit back and watch as the women -- and feminists -- demand that women be allowed to play the best of five sets to prove the men wrong!
But then again, ideological feminists can be as deaf and unyielding as the men they have long blamed for obstructing progress for women. They seem unable even to hear such charges of unfairness, let alone respond to them.
Yet suppose the genders were reversed in the tennis pay issue. Suppose the male players received the same prize money for playing fewer sets than the women (imagine that!), and hence had enough energy left to play doubles and mixed doubles and earn even more prize money, as the women do now (as Venus and Serena Williams did at Wimbledon 2008). Feminists undoubtedly would regain their hearing in a millisecond and thunder their protests until the females either received more money or played fewer sets.
See — it’s easy, when you think about it, to flush out ideological feminists’ true mission: never mind equality; just demand what’s best for women. In tennis, demand that women get paid the same as the men for doing only 66 percent of the work.
Hey Jerry! What I think you're missing in this piece, is the fact that you
are basing your case on the fact that men are bigger, stronger with more
stamina. We live in a market society. The women's game has never been
based on strength and stamina on the same level as men, but interest
factor. Women's tennis is as potent as men's when we talk about
attendance. A lot of people aren't into the men's game - speed and
stamina. Women's tennis is different from women's basketball. The
audience is there! I've followed tennis most of my life, and I prefer
women's tennis over the men's. So do a lot of people, and it's what the
Williams sisters have brought to the game. The young women are coming in
with the speed, strategy and power that Venus and Serena brought to the
game. If they are getting the audience, women deserve to be paid as much
as the men.
I'm glad you said it and not me!
Good comments. May I suggest this article that addresses the
physical-strength differences between the sexes:
"Should 'Men Are Stronger' Bar Women From Military Combat Roles?"
http://tinyurl.com/6hw8oh
Tabacco, I watched the women's final at Wimbledon. Where you come up with
these ideas that you know me better than I do is all in your brain - not in
substance. The men's game is quicker, faster with fewer long rallies than
the women. The female players train with men to up their game. But
physically they are not the same. And telling a 25 year old that women hit
harder than men did 30 or 40 years doesn't compensate for the fact that men
STILL hit harder today.
From Jeffrey Asher, whose comment was inadvertently deleted earlier:
Jerry, we all know the differences, but what did that information have to
do with whether female players should get paid as much as the men? Women's
tennis get as much attention as the men's - in some instances even more so
(through media)!
If we gauge the prize money on the work they do then women should get less.
If we gauge the prize money on the earning opportunity of men and women,
then women should get less as they have more opportunity to win more prize
moeny in the doubles (and on average do).
If we gauge the prize money on the potential revenue that the match brings
in, then women should get much less, as far more watch the men's.
If we gauge the prize money on the entertainment that it brings to the
masses, then we can see that again, this should be less for women, as fewer
people watch it. Surely the only fair way of gauging who gives the most
entertainment in sports.
Wog, audience is determining factor for players wages - the number of
people watching (in the stands, tv), marketing, advertising, talent. Every
men's match is NOT standing room only. When a sport is not supported by an
audience, the sports trickles off with smaller salaries, because the
audience is not supporting the sport - like women's basketball. Wog, to
say that the men's game is subsidizing women's tennis indicates you aren't
aware of how much money is in the game.
A Bold New Look at the Sexes
Roy F. Baumeister: Is There Anything Good About Men? (He has it right, mostly!)
He's going round and round because she's going round and round, and she's going round and round because....
RSS Add-Me
