leviathan13 Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 It refers to equality of opportunity and equality of treatment, not everyone being identical. ---------- Post added 19-03-2018 at 19:20 ---------- I'm sure you'll be able to quote something to back up that ridiculous claim? Everyone should be treated appropriately based on their personal circumstances, not equally. 'Equality' is a bad word for a good idea. Treating every one 'equally' removes the need for competition and to be the best. And, apologies - I should have said 'in my humble opinion' to the last bit. I shall edit it now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Everyone should be treated appropriately based on their personal circumstances, not equally. 'Equality' is a bad word for a good idea. Treating every one 'equally' removes the need for competition and to be the best. And, apologies - I should have said 'in my humble opinion' to the last bit. I shall edit it now... I think a good example in this regard is to think about disability. People should have equality of opportunity and the ability to achieve their potential. Not everyone because of disability has the same ability to achieve their potential, and may need additional assistance to access services to achieve their potential, whatever it is. Equality can be a misleading term. I disagree with the idea that treating people equally removing the need for competition. If you think about education - at the moment, people don't start off from similar positions - there are vast differences in wealth and income; meaning that in terms of competition, comparing the academic achievements of a child who goes to a 'sink school' with a child who goes to Eton is futile. To me, competition (or equality of opportunity in this context) means starting off from similar places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 How many people support an Australian politician saying that women rugby players should be allowed to compete in the men's game? Her reasoning is that women may not be as physically strong, but they have better leadership qualities... is that going to be enough to compete against 18 stone brick outhouses? Its getting so ridiculous that male and female tennis players are being compared and they think that they should be paid the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted March 20, 2018 Author Share Posted March 20, 2018 Its getting so ridiculous that male and female tennis players are being compared and they think that they should be paid the same. Can you offer a remotely plausible reason why they shouldn't be the paid the same? ---------- Post added 20-03-2018 at 18:30 ---------- Treating every one 'equally' removes the need for competition and to be the best. No, it doesn't. It provides a level playing field and allows people to compete on equal terms so that those with talent and application shine through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest makapaka Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Can you offer a remotely plausible reason why they shouldn't be the paid the same? They play less tennis? Less viewing time for spectators / tv = less revenue. Men’s games take almost double the amount of time? Etc. If it was to be equal and with equal pay they should just mix up men and women and all play in the same tournament. You can pretty much write off any hopes for women being a Wimbledon champion again though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 They play less tennis? Less viewing time for spectators / tv = less revenue. Men’s games take almost double the amount of time? Etc. If it was to be equal and with equal pay they should just mix up men and women and all play in the same tournament. You can pretty much write off any hopes for women being a Wimbledon champion again though. The prize money is for the best players (men/women) at the tournament. The organisers of Wimbledon dictate the maximum sets required to win, so why should best woman get less than the best man? Maybe they should make both best of 3 or best of 5? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Can you offer a remotely plausible reason why they shouldn't be the paid the same? ---------- Post added 20-03-2018 at 18:30 ---------- No, it doesn't. It provides a level playing field and allows people to compete on equal terms so that those with talent and application shine through. It does seem a bit unfair that because women play fewer sets, it enables them to also compete in the doubles tournament. As men's games are generally longer (and may require more recovery time) it isn't really possible for men to compete at a high level whilst also playing doubles matches. This is why Serena Williams was able to win the singles Wimbledon title in 2016, and also win the doubles title with her sister that year (which she also did in 2012, 2009 and Venus did in 2008 ). They should either make women play the same number of sets as men, or keep the different match lengths and just prevent people from competing in both singles and doubles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Can you offer a remotely plausible reason why they shouldn't be the paid the same? In employment, it would be about doing the same job. So if there was a tennis match between both sexes, then they should be paid the same, no matter who wins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest makapaka Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 The prize money is for the best players (men/women) at the tournament. The organisers of Wimbledon dictate the maximum sets required to win, so why should best woman get less than the best man? Maybe they should make both best of 3 or best of 5? Yes that would be another option. I don’t see the benefit of reducing the amount of tennis for people to watch to make it equal though - why reduce the duration of men’s game when people enjoy watching it and playing it. So make it both 5 sets. It will completely change the women’s game as we know it but at least it will be equal - whether people will continue to watch the women’s game will depend on how entertaining the new women’s game is and how many people want to watch it of course. The winnings in sport are generally driven by the revenue generated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Can you offer a remotely plausible reason why they shouldn't be the paid the same? As with most sports, in general the men's game generates more interest/viewing figures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now