So nothing too serious. Still the same ol’ computer now with working power cord. And same ol’ righties talking about shit. For instance, the fact that there were only 981 mentions of the fact that it was George Washington’s Birthday says something dastardly about the liberal media. And the fact that Richard Petty signed someone’s bill is a good reason to make it a law. FWCon comparing public education to slavery. But today’s subject is women’s tennis.
Men and women will now be paid equally at Wimbledon. Bravo! That is a giant step forward for equality, an affirmation that women deserve the same rewards in the workplace for equal work.
Women everywhere confronting challenges in their lives — single motherhood, the glass ceiling, groping bosses, etc. — now can rejoice that rich teenage and 20-something girls will no longer be burdened with the emotional and psychological trauma of earning $1.117 million instead of $1.170 million for winning Wimbledon.
Yes, how could women at the top of their profession earning as much as men possibly have anything to do with the glass ceiling? And obviously the top draw isn’t the only amount that will change.
A day after this landmark announcement, it would, of course, be crass to observe two minor points about professional tennis: 1) The men work longer hours; 2) And they are better at what they do.
The case for longer hours is 5 sets instead of 3. Of course there is a lot of practice that goes into tennis and it’s tough to say with certainty that the men actually put in more hours. As for two, really?
Those irrefutable statements, however, have been overwhelmed in the public sphere by these compelling counter-arguments: “It’s the nice thing to do”; “It’s socially responsible”; “Just because”; “Shut up, you male chauvinist pig.”
Dude, I just refuted both of them.
Those ripostes are best delivered with a look that properly conveys contemptuous disapproval.
Surely such arguments and glares from a wife/daughter/colleague are what crushed the former intransigence of All England Club chair Tim Phillips.
Stupid broads.
A year ago, he defended the decision to pay the women’s champion slightly less than her male counterpart with this statement: “This issue is one of a judgment on fairness.”
This pig, er, Phillips, insisted on noting that men play best-of-five sets, the women best-of-three. He pointed out — just like a man would — that playing fewer sets within a shallower talent pool was less physically taxing. Feeling fresh, women often also played doubles and, as a result, the top 10 women made more at Wimbledon in 2005 than the top 10 men.
So winning more tournaments, and placing better, women earned more than men. If you use one specific metric.
He also might have noted — boorishly, of course — that men’s tennis generates more revenue (though not always better ratings) but wisely avoided introducing math into the debate because that annoys many gender-issue observers, who suspect some lout is about to produce a breakdown of SAT scores.
Yes women’s tennis is still treated like a second class sport and it’s tough to generate revenue. Although if it gets better attended and better viewership, from time to time, it would be bad to show how it wasn’t as profitable. You know I’d have to get out the calculator, and blah blah blah. Just go watch Oprah and leave the calculating to people like Ted Miller.
Yet, in just one calendar year, Phillips and his cohorts redefined their philosophy of fairness, stating: “The time is right to bring this subject to a logical conclusion and eliminate the difference.”
Right. Good for him. Maybe this will help attract more women to the sport both as fans and as players. I think that may have been his goal.
He added (insert John Cleese voice-over): “We believe our decision to offer equal prize money provides a boost for the game as a whole and recognizes the enormous contribution that women players make to the game and to Wimbledon. We hope it will also encourage girls who want a career in sport to choose tennis as their best option. In short, good for tennis, good for women players and good for Wimbledon. Now get these nasty harridans off my back.”
Harridans? Did your editor make you take out “bitches”? She was probably a woman huh? Phillips just said he feels that the decision will help his sport out. I mean trying to recruit the best talent is pretty logical.
He didn’t actually say that final sentence. At least, not out loud. It was inserted to wake up those who may have dozed while Phillips provided a patronizing pat on the head to women.
Yeah, we know, but I was making fun of you for putting other people’s words in quotation marks and telling us how you know what he means.
OK, let’s take a break from the sarcasm.
Women should be paid equally at Wimbledon, but that assertion is hung mostly on the “just because” principle. It’s simply the right thing to do. It was particularly petty for the All England Club to maintain such a small difference in purses, as if tweaking the women served a purpose.
The issue, however, can’t be won on the basis of pure merit — five will never equal three and the No. 1 woman will never be capable of beating the No. 1 man.
Maybe. But on the other hand never is a pretty strong statement for something that hasn’t been tried.
Sure, the women’s game briefly eclipsed the men’s in popularity when the Williams sisters, Serena and Venus, as well as the pulchritudinous Anna Kournikova were in their primes, but until the women consistently produce equal bell-to-bell television ratings and revenue over an extended period of time, then the equality argument will smack of social engineering.
And when the women’s game eclipsed the men’s, the women surely got paid more right? What? The men were still paid more. Oh no, social engineering! I’ll be honest, I haven’t looked it up, but something tells me that he didn’t think that was social engineering or at least didn’t write a column about it. I haven’t done a good job breaking the sarcasm.
Equal pay for equal work is an unassailable position. And it has little to do with this issue.
Still, this decision is a good thing in terms of symbolism, right? Mostly, yes. But there are unintended consequences.
What we are presently experiencing is the commonality of the public discourse. It is driven by the mass media and controlled by rules of decorum — rules that are sometimes denigrated as “politically correct.”
I don’t know what the deal is here, but Miller doesn’t seem to realize that his column appears in the mass media.
This is where the Wimbledon decision has been universally celebrated.
This sentence would be like me saying blogs never swear.
Then there is the private discourse. That’s people talking to people they trust. That’s 10 friends grousing about an issue at the local watering hole. That’s a daddy being a mite too glib in response to his son (or daughter) asking why women play three sets and men play five.
The way they write a bullshit sports column. The fact that Jim Miller doesn’t speak up when his kids and friends say sexist things.
That also includes the unfettered exchanges on the Internet blogdom, where anonymity grants a higher degree of freedom of expression.
Blogtopia.
In those places, this issue frequently will be greeted with smirks and resentment. That attitude will carry over into how some people conduct themselves, socially, politically and economically.
And columnally.
They will look for opportunities to take passive-aggressive (or perhaps just aggressive) revenge on what they view as an increasingly PC society.
It, therefore, could play a small part in a continuing backlash against progressive ideas that shouldn’t need to be propped up by engineered means.
It’s tough to believe this column is a defense of progressive ideas.
Don’t buy it? Two words: White House.
Yes the fact that one tournament in London has just this year decided to pay winners of both genders the same amount is probably the reason President Bush is in the White House. It doesn’t have anything to do with him stealing an election in Florida. It doesn’t have anything to do with the way he shamelessly manipulated the war on terror. No, it’s women’s tennis.
Enough with the seriousness, though. It comes down to this, whether you are a man or woman, right-wing nut or lefty loony.
Was that a sentence?
The best justification for paying male and female tennis professionals equally is this: It’s the gentlemanly thing to do.
We’ll, I think the gentelmanly thing might be to not write most of this article. And then blame uppity women for President Bush stealing the presidency.
