-
Posts
-
I cant list them as I have computer problems but we all know what they are.
Maybe empathy was the wrong choice of word. I was thinking particularly of dressage, women generally tend to dominate that sport, build up better relationships with the horses. The equal pay thing, I get where you’re coming from but if you accept women are weaker and not capable of playing the same amounts of sets, are you not discriminating against them for their physical inability by saying they need to equal men to get the same pay?
Women are capable of playing 5 sets as they can run marathons/ other endurance events so can’t see an issue with it at all , although like I said I think all matches should be over 3 sets…the 5 set matches go on forever. The best argument for equal pay is the training argument which is hard to disagree with but still think both genders should play similar length matches whether that is 3 or 5 sets. I’m referring more to championship rewards for the winner in terms of pay like wimbledon rather than general pay for tournaments where they play the same number of sets . In Wimbledon the prize money for men should be higher as the men are working harder for it- simple as that.
I have no interest in tennis, know nothing of the pay structure so I cant make an informed argument for or against in all fairness.
If men are more capable physically, in strength and endurance, and women played the same amounts of sets, would the women not be working harder just to keep up?
You could argue women deserve more as they are at a disadvantage because of their gender.
Maybe empathy was the wrong choice of word. I was thinking particularly of dressage, women generally tend to dominate that sport, build up better relationships with the horses. The equal pay thing, I get where you’re coming from but if you accept women are weaker and not capable of playing the same amounts of sets, are you not discriminating against them for their physical inability by saying they need to equal men to get the same pay?
Women are capable of playing 5 sets as they can run marathons/ other endurance events so can’t see an issue with it at all , although like I said I think all matches should be over 3 sets…the 5 set matches go on forever. The best argument for equal pay is the training argument which is hard to disagree with but still think both genders should play similar length matches whether that is 3 or 5 sets. I’m referring more to championship rewards for the winner in terms of pay like wimbledon rather than general pay for tournaments where they play the same number of sets . In Wimbledon the prize money for men should be higher as the men are working harder for it- simple as that.
I have no interest in tennis, know nothing of the pay structure so I cant make an informed argument for or against in all fairness. If men are more capable physically, in strength and endurance, and women played the same amounts of sets, would the women not be working harder just to keep up? You could argue women deserve more as they are at a disadvantage because of their gender.
Women aren;t children, to imply they deserve more money as they are overcoming physical disadvantages is ridiculous. If I was running against Usian Bolt I would have to put more effort in to reach the finishing line so by that logic I should get paid more for being less able?
I cant list them as I have computer problems but we all know what they are.
We’re all waiting for the…. “list”
I cant list them as I have computer problems but we all know what they are.
We’re all waiting for the…. “list”
Ballet dancing is one and the world knitting champion is female so that proves women can be the best in some sports. You are just listing the sports that rely on power
Ballet dancing
Ballet isn’t a sport
Maybe empathy was the wrong choice of word. I was thinking particularly of dressage, women generally tend to dominate that sport, build up better relationships with the horses. The equal pay thing, I get where you’re coming from but if you accept women are weaker and not capable of playing the same amounts of sets, are you not discriminating against them for their physical inability by saying they need to equal men to get the same pay?
Women are capable of playing 5 sets as they can run marathons/ other endurance events so can’t see an issue with it at all , although like I said I think all matches should be over 3 sets…the 5 set matches go on forever. The best argument for equal pay is the training argument which is hard to disagree with but still think both genders should play similar length matches whether that is 3 or 5 sets. I’m referring more to championship rewards for the winner in terms of pay like wimbledon rather than general pay for tournaments where they play the same number of sets . In Wimbledon the prize money for men should be higher as the men are working harder for it- simple as that.
I have no interest in tennis, know nothing of the pay structure so I cant make an informed argument for or against in all fairness. If men are more capable physically, in strength and endurance, and women played the same amounts of sets, would the women not be working harder just to keep up? You could argue women deserve more as they are at a disadvantage because of their gender.
Women aren;t children, to imply they deserve more money as they are overcoming physical disadvantages is ridiculous. If I was running against Usian Bolt I would have to put more effort in to reach the finishing line so by that logic I should get paid more for being less able?
I’m not implying anything, I’m just exploring ideas here.
If women are physically unable to compete equally then it makes senses to seperate the tournaments according to gender. I’m struggling to express what I mean here, so forgive me.
Men are physically capable of playing five sets, it pushes them to their limits, for women it’s three. Both genders are playing to their limits. In both cases, to win takes skill, determination and dedication within the confines of gender. To say a woman doesn’t deserve the rewards a man does because she isn’t physically capable of matching a mans strength, power and endurance just seems wrong to me.
Ballet dancing
Ballet isn’t a sport
It is LOOK IT UP
It is LOOK IT UP
Depends how you define a sport tbh, there are different ways of doing it.
Maybe empathy was the wrong choice of word. I was thinking particularly of dressage, women generally tend to dominate that sport, build up better relationships with the horses. The equal pay thing, I get where you’re coming from but if you accept women are weaker and not capable of playing the same amounts of sets, are you not discriminating against them for their physical inability by saying they need to equal men to get the same pay?
Women are capable of playing 5 sets as they can run marathons/ other endurance events so can’t see an issue with it at all , although like I said I think all matches should be over 3 sets…the 5 set matches go on forever. The best argument for equal pay is the training argument which is hard to disagree with but still think both genders should play similar length matches whether that is 3 or 5 sets. I’m referring more to championship rewards for the winner in terms of pay like wimbledon rather than general pay for tournaments where they play the same number of sets . In Wimbledon the prize money for men should be higher as the men are working harder for it- simple as that.
I have no interest in tennis, know nothing of the pay structure so I cant make an informed argument for or against in all fairness. If men are more capable physically, in strength and endurance, and women played the same amounts of sets, would the women not be working harder just to keep up? You could argue women deserve more as they are at a disadvantage because of their gender.
Women aren;t children, to imply they deserve more money as they are overcoming physical disadvantages is ridiculous. If I was running against Usian Bolt I would have to put more effort in to reach the finishing line so by that logic I should get paid more for being less able?
I’m not implying anything, I’m just exploring ideas here. If women are physically unable to compete equally then it makes senses to seperate the tournaments according to gender. I’m struggling to express what I mean here, so forgive me. Men are physically capable of playing five sets, it pushes them to their limits, for women it’s three. Both genders are playing to their limits. In both cases, to win takes skill, determination and dedication within the confines of gender. To say a woman doesn’t deserve the rewards a man does because she isn’t physically capable of matching a mans strength, power and endurance just seems wrong to me.
Women are physically inferior to men but are still capable of playing 5 sets of tennis, let’s not take this to bizarre extremes. Women routinely compete in marathons etc so the 3 set rule is simply an outdated custom which needs to be updated. I’m saying in a specific tournament, if there is no equality in effort there should be no equality in pay. Female actresses work as hard as men , female surgeons , female track and field yet we have this bizarre set up in tennis. I don;t believe for a minute women are physically incapable of playing 5 sets of tennis which means they ” aren’t playing to their limits” so their pay should reflect that.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!