Ultimately, whether women’s players are deserving of the same play as men is dependent on what the market wants to pay them.
At this point, the market believes that women’s players should get the same. And that is the way it is. On that argument, Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova are correct and Gilles Simon is not.
At the same time, I’ve always believed that the women should have to play the same number of sets as the men. At the major tournaments, a man must win the best 3 of 5 sets in his matches, whereas a woman must win 2 of 3 sets. I say make the women play 3 of 5. That would make things more competitive and push women players to higher levels of fitness.
I’ve always had a gripe with the way “equality” has been implemented. For example: in the military, women are not held to the same physical standards as men. They don’t have to do the same number of pushups or situps. They don’t have to run 2 miles at the same pace as the men. Even for Airborne training, women can opt for the flexed armhang whereas the men must perform nine or more pullups.
(Even in the civilian world, women complain of “pay inequity” when in fact they miss more time from work than men do and are not known to be as aggressive at negotiating compensation as men are. I’m not dissing anyone, it just is what it is.)
If you want “gender equality”, then fine: make both sexes perform at the same level, across the board. That means the military must make the women do whatever the men have to do, with the same quantitative measurements. That means sports–such as tennis–should require women to play the same number of sets as the men. That means women golfers should tee off from the same place as the men. That also means that, in the office environment, women get the same benefits–and no more–as the men, and are held to the same productivity requirements.
I remember in the 1980s, when Martina Navratilova was destroying her opposition, some folks wondered aloud how well she would fare against the men.
John McEnroe received no small amount of flak for asserting that Martina wouldn’t stand a chance against the 100th-ranked men’s player.
And you know what? He was right.
Now don’t get me wrong: I’ve always been a fan of women’s tennis. While I have plenty of issues with Martina’s personal views, I’ve always admired her work ethic and her skill. She went from the chubby “Great Wide Hope” to one of the fittest women in the history of sports. When she caught her stride, she literally OWNED Chris Evert and everyone else on the women’s circuit.
But let’s be honest here: put her on the same court with McEnroe–then or now–and it wouldn’t even be a fair fight.
Still, as far as compensation goes, if the market is willing to pay the women the same as the men, then it’s fair.
i didn’t realize women in the military weren’t required to succeed at the same physical standards as men – that’s wrong. if you want the benefits, you must accept the responsibility (another truth i teach my kids all.the.time).
and if the market wants to pay women’s players the same, they certainly can choose to do so, however i agree with you that women should play to the same standards as men. they could even try to play in the men’s field, but the sport won’t allow it b/c women would rarely be able to compete at that level, wiping most out. and women want to compete, so they compete against other women.
***
on a slightly side note, i was reading an article where the author talked about a tour of people’s backyards. the author would say, ‘this couple had …’ … and ‘this couple’s was …’ … but then he said, ‘and this delightful gay couple ….’
i was thinking … wtf?!!! every heterosexual couple was just a couple, but the gay couple was defined as gay and described as delightful? why do people even think they must do that?
***
if you want to be equal, then, as you say, the standards should be the same. if gay couples want to be considered equal to heterosexual couples, they why do they even need to define that they are gay? and why do they get a positive adjective when heterosexual couples don’t get any?
why do women need to be defined as women if they want to be equal? if they want to be equal, then their gender should not even be considered.
the reality is that … sit down for this one … men and women are different. yes, it is true. women have tried so hard to be like men, but they fail because they are not men.
and i doubt ‘equal pay’ has ever been a reality. people get to pay what they want to whom they want, and the worker gets to decide whether they want to accept that or not. and not all ‘benefits’ are recorded.
personally, i don’t have any desire to watch women’s tennis and wouldn’t pay for a ticket, but i’d pay for a ticket to men’s tennis.
life is not fair nor equal nor just. and that’s even biblical.
I agree. In all this discussion over “equality”, what often gets lost here is that there is very little Biblical justification for it.
In fact, the only “equality” is with respect to the standing of believers before God.
In a household, the husband is head of the wife.
In the real world, men are–as a group–physically stronger than women. In the same sports, men run faster, jump higher, lift more weight, throw things farther, and hit the ball farther than women. This is not a putdown of women; it is merely a statement of fact.
Every now and then–and Professor Hale can elaborate–you get women who whine, “Why can’t women go to Ranger School, or Navy SEALs BUD/S training, or Special Forces training?”
While you might be able to find a couple of women–and I do mean a couple of them–who could make it past the first day of BUD/S in Coronado, or past the first day of Ranger Indoctrination Phase in Fort Benning, or past the day one of the 24-day Special Forces Selection and Assessment at Fort Bragg, that’s just ONE DAY. (And you have to be damn good just to make it TO those phases, let alone make it past them.)
Is it fair? Absolutely!
But here’s the catch: a substantial portion of the weeding out involves screening out folks who want to argue about fairness. I’ll give you an example.
Let’s say you’re in Ranger School, and you’re taking a fitness test. Your Ranger Instructor (RI) tells you that you must perform at least 60 pushups in 2 minutes in order to pass.
(Note: for an aspiring Ranger, that should be child’s play.)
So you get down to knocking out your pushups. Your RI is counting them. “57…58…59…”
You hit 60.
Then you hear, “59!”
If you start complaining, you’re hosed. The good candidates realize this and keep pumping out pushups.
“59…59…59…59″ It goes on for what seems like forever.
During this time, people start quitting. Others start complaining and get dropped. The serious folks–they REALLY want to be Rangers–they keep slogging it out.
Finally, the RI yells, “60!”
The lesson they try to instill: in combat, it’s not always fair.
You won’t always get the cover fire when you are expecting it. When you call in an air strike, it won’t always arrive on time. When you shoot an enemy, it may wound–but not kill–him, and he may still be able to hurt you. One of your men may get badly wounded–even killed–in the freakiest of accidents.
If you bitch and whine, more people will get killed.
But if you accept your situation and deal with it, you will always be in the fight.
we have a friend who is in the military and does not like working w/women b/c they always have something to whine about and don’t carry their weight. he says when they’re in a situation, they need to know everyone can do their job and not have to take up the slack for someone else b/c they’re female when a male would not need extra help.
***
i have never had near the strength of a man, especially upper body strength. even when i was in great shape and working out regularly, my upper body strength was weak. i’ve just built two bookshelves for my girls and am fixin to prime and paint them … my right arm would LOVE some of that male upper-body strength! (i’m right handed, but my left arm is stronger – i carry babies and books, etc, in my left arm – go figure)