The Student Room Group

Do women deserve equal prizes at Wimbledon?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Mankytoes
Darts does have women, no offense but you clearly don't follow these sports (not that darts is really a sport). It has a significant women's game and has had women play in the men's game. Tennis is the one sport where the women are given equal money (for less work), close to equal publicity, and similar respect, yet the games still have a huge quality gulf. Stop comparing them, they will never be the same, just enjoy two different but enjoyable sports.

So job performance should be irrelevant? If we both did, say, data entry for the same company, but you were twice as quick as me, and had to work longer hours, you would say it would be sexist for you to earn more money than me?


You can't say any of the top darts players have been women though can you?

Well at the moment I am much better at my job that anyone in my office and don't get paid any more. I don't think I should be either. They work just as hard.
Original post by samba
The point is though, woman's tennis is bad. How are you supposed to improve if you don't challenge yourself against the best, taste failure, and keep going?

I think the Novak vs Na match showed a great example of this [even though novak was clearly holding back A LOT.] - by the end of the game Na was able to hit a couple of legitimate aces against him, and some very good points.


Well that's totally subjective. I certainly prefer men's tennis, like most fans, but I also watch quite a bit of women's. In the same way, I mainly watch premier league football, but I also like going to lower league games, I don't think they are "bad".

I think women should be allowed to enter men's tournaments in any non-contact sport, it's up to them if they want to enter the men's games, but I don't think there's much point, they aren't suddenly going to become competitive. As I say, we should appreciate both games separately. You might not enjoy women's tennis, but plenty of people do.
Original post by redferry
The one that really confuses me though is why aren't there more women in snooker? Seriously??? If I ever have a daughter I'm going to train her up to be snooker champion of the world :tongue:


Six time snooker World Champion says "women will never match top men"
Original post by redferry
You can't say any of the top darts players have been women though can you?

Well at the moment I am much better at my job that anyone in my office and don't get paid any more. I don't think I should be either. They work just as hard.


No, but that's not what you said, you said they have "no women". Whether you were referring to the sport generally or the "men's" game, that is incorrect, and statements like that put girls off.

You should probably be aware your fellow workers may feel the same way- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

That's nonsense, if you're contributing more, you should be paid more. That means whoever is in charge is profiting more than they are entitled to from your hard work. I don't understand your reasoning at all. It's fair for a boss to earn more, even if they don't work harder, just because they have a different position, but a lower level worker, who could be contributing more to the companies success than even their superior, should never get a higher wage. Just doesn't make any logical sense.

In any case, you've ignored a key part of my argument- more work/longer hours. The men play best of five sets, the women play three. This means that women can enter more tournaments and more doubles, so actually earn more money, just like in my hypothetical, say you're doing forty hours a week and I'm doing thirty, I could get a part time job in a bar for ten hours, so actually earn significantly more than you.
Reply 64


He still kept it quite PC though, nothing on biological differences really.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081209100948.htm


While women tend to be stronger verbally than men, many studies have shown that adult men have an advantage in the ability to imagine complex objects visually and to mentally rotate them. Does this advantage go back to infancy?

"We found the answer is yes," said Scott P. Johnson, a UCLA professor of psychology and an expert in infant perception, brain development, cognition and learning. "Infants as young as 5 months can perform the skill, but only boys at least in our study."


"We don't know why men are better than women at this task or why boys are better than girls at this, but we do now know that this difference extends all the way back to 5 months of age," Johnson said.
We can take this further. We can look at any other industry and see a disparity between seemingly 'equal' people where skill level/ability is taken into account before wages are conferred. Teachers, nurses, doctors, pilots to name but a few. All of these people will have - broadly speaking within their own industries - the same qualification as anyone else within their industry, yet can receive vastly different wages based on how good they are at the job.

If we accept that that is true - and, more than true, perfectly acceptable and legitimate - in some professions, why not all?


Oh that well renowned expert on psychology and physiology Steve Davies :tongue:

The fact is in snooker there is such a small pool of women to draw from that there's no way we can say women don't have the potential to be as good as men.
Lol no, womens' sport is watched by hardly anyone for a very good reason
Yes, they deserve the same pay.

OP, have you ever considered maybe taking an off day and writing a thread post that isn't about bashing feminism? You seem to have a chip the size of Mars about us.
Original post by Mankytoes
No, but that's not what you said, you said they have "no women". Whether you were referring to the sport generally or the "men's" game, that is incorrect, and statements like that put girls off.

You should probably be aware your fellow workers may feel the same way- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

That's nonsense, if you're contributing more, you should be paid more. That means whoever is in charge is profiting more than they are entitled to from your hard work. I don't understand your reasoning at all. It's fair for a boss to earn more, even if they don't work harder, just because they have a different position, but a lower level worker, who could be contributing more to the companies success than even their superior, should never get a higher wage. Just doesn't make any logical sense.

In any case, you've ignored a key part of my argument- more work/longer hours. The men play best of five sets, the women play three. This means that women can enter more tournaments and more doubles, so actually earn more money, just like in my hypothetical, say you're doing forty hours a week and I'm doing thirty, I could get a part time job in a bar for ten hours, so actually earn significantly more than you.


Except my success at work is measured quantitatively - I get 30 market research questionnaires done in a day whereas others get 15 to 20 tops. So I know I contribute more, I don't just think it.

In companies where the boss does have a more difficult job its fair, which is in most cases! However I disagree with things like university deans being paid ridiculously more than academics as let's be honest their job is hardly more difficult.

True, I see your final point and if it is genuinely the case that women earn more per hour worked obviously the prize money should be dropped in line with that.
Original post by Drewski
We can take this further. We can look at any other industry and see a disparity between seemingly 'equal' people where skill level/ability is taken into account before wages are conferred. Teachers, nurses, doctors, pilots to name but a few. All of these people will have - broadly speaking within their own industries - the same qualification as anyone else within their industry, yet can receive vastly different wages based on how good they are at the job.

If we accept that that is true - and, more than true, perfectly acceptable and legitimate - in some professions, why not all?


The two are different. In Tennis, the pay gap is officially because of the gender difference. That's the starting point - that women get less. Actually, I don't really know how Wimbledon, which operates under English law, gets away with that.

The examples you mention are all to do with qualifications, skill levels, tests, peer review, etc and not to do with gender per se.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Yes, they deserve the same pay.

OP, have you ever considered maybe taking an off day and writing a thread post that isn't about bashing feminism? You seem to have a chip the size of Mars about us.


I think it's how he defines himself.
They should get the same prizes, but they probably never will because the men's sports are much more popular.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
The two are different. In Tennis, the pay gap is officially because of the gender difference. That's the starting point - that women get less. Actually, I don't really know how Wimbledon, which operates under English law, gets away with that.


Because 1 - they are equal now (have been for some years) and 2 - they're prizes, not wages.
Original post by Drewski
Because 1 - they are equal now (have been for some years) and 2 - they're prizes, not wages.


Oh, OK, I should keep up more - I didn't realise they were on the same prize money, I thought it was still less. Maybe I was listening to stuff about what they get from advertising.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Oh, OK, I should keep up more - I didn't realise they were on the same prize money, I thought it was still less. Maybe I was listening to stuff about what they get from advertising.


Have been since 2007.

Which means that women are actually capable of out-earning the men by quite a margin, as their less-physically demanding and less time-consuming competitions allow them to compete in 2 or 3 classes at once.
'Certainly Not'.

As much as like to watch the womens game (on mute of course) every now and then there's no getting around the fact that women simply cannot match men at tennis. The mens game at the top is so physical that it's unbelievable, the world number 5 women at the French Open last year was a 5 foot Russian Chick who lost 6-0, 6-0 in less than an hour.

When women can slog it out for 5 hours i'll have some sympathy. Until then i advise people to watch this match and then then tell me women deserve the money that men do.

[video="youtube;cU7QcBjzWfU"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU7QcBjzWfU[/video]
Reply 77
Original post by Rakas21
'Certainly Not'.

As much as like to watch the womens game (on mute of course) every now and then there's no getting around the fact that women simply cannot match men at tennis. The mens game at the top is so physical that it's unbelievable, the world number 5 women at the French Open last year was a 5 foot Russian Chick who lost 6-0, 6-0 in less than an hour.

When women can slog it out for 5 hours i'll have some sympathy. Until then i advise people to watch this match and then then tell me women deserve the money that men do.

[video="youtube;cU7QcBjzWfU"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU7QcBjzWfU[/video]


Women deserve the money that men do.
Original post by DAS4793
Women deserve the money that men do.


Watch that match and then say it.
Original post by DAS4793
Women deserve the money that men do.


The video's 5 hrs long. We all know you didn't watch it in the 4 minutes between his and your post :wink:

Quick Reply

Latest