Double or nada on the highjump
Usually
it is feminists who claim that physical differences between men and
women are only a social construct, so that women are just as strong as
men and could compete with them equally in sports, but the evil
patriarchy won't let them do so because it would be shameful for a man
to lose to a woman. Since it is always considered gauche to explicitly
point out that men are better than women and therefore totally dominate
the world at the top, unfortunately many normal people also hold
erroneous ideas about the level of male and female sports. Of course,
the top female athletes who actually have to play the game know better
than to claim something this stupid, as they are perfectly aware that
in most sports, the top female player in the world can perhaps hope to
compete with the top men in the county level. And the more physical the
sport, the bigger the disparity between the top men and top females in
it.
However, I see that the bootylicious tennis player Venus Williams has different ideas, since her opinion piece "Wimbledon has sent me a message: I'm only a second-class champion" complains about the fact that women's Wimbledon champion doesn't get paid as much as the men's champion. Her reasoning seems to be that since the women's tennis championship is played on the same field as the men's, the women's champion should be entitled to equal price money. At least this is an interesting argument that could be applied in many other walks of life. In this article, note how cleverly Venus sidesteps admitting that she or her sister would have no chance whatsoever to beat any male player who is good enough to play in Wimbledon. They can only "win" in their own little Special Olympics, which they then imagine being somehow equal to the real thing, secure in their knowledge that they will never actually have to demonstrate this.
When I was a kid, I remember reading a few times about the famous "Battle of the Sexes" tennis match between Bobby Riggs and Billie Jean King, and how it somehow proved that male and female players are equal. It's pretty revealing that it was only a few years ago that I found out that at the time of this famous match, Riggs was 55 years old while King was 29, and that Riggs didn't even practice whereas King was at her prime and had practiced hard beforehand. Well, well, well. Thank God for the Internet. I wonder why these important little tidbits weren't mentioned in any place that touted this match as some kind of decisive proof that male and female athletes are totally equal physically, except that women are better and smarter, of course.
The Wikipedia article claims that it is an urban legend that King was given two serves against Riggs's one and that King was allowed to hit into the doubles court area, so I won't argue with this now, but if either of those claims later turns out to be true when I search more about this, this "Battle of the Sexes" would be an absolutely perfect illustration of the reality of feminism and its typical Stalinist way of rewriting history.
With a little more searching, I came upon the page "Jon Wertheim's Tennis Mailbag", that offers this little story about the Williams sisters and a male player Karsten Braasch:
However, I see that the bootylicious tennis player Venus Williams has different ideas, since her opinion piece "Wimbledon has sent me a message: I'm only a second-class champion" complains about the fact that women's Wimbledon champion doesn't get paid as much as the men's champion. Her reasoning seems to be that since the women's tennis championship is played on the same field as the men's, the women's champion should be entitled to equal price money. At least this is an interesting argument that could be applied in many other walks of life. In this article, note how cleverly Venus sidesteps admitting that she or her sister would have no chance whatsoever to beat any male player who is good enough to play in Wimbledon. They can only "win" in their own little Special Olympics, which they then imagine being somehow equal to the real thing, secure in their knowledge that they will never actually have to demonstrate this.
When I was a kid, I remember reading a few times about the famous "Battle of the Sexes" tennis match between Bobby Riggs and Billie Jean King, and how it somehow proved that male and female players are equal. It's pretty revealing that it was only a few years ago that I found out that at the time of this famous match, Riggs was 55 years old while King was 29, and that Riggs didn't even practice whereas King was at her prime and had practiced hard beforehand. Well, well, well. Thank God for the Internet. I wonder why these important little tidbits weren't mentioned in any place that touted this match as some kind of decisive proof that male and female athletes are totally equal physically, except that women are better and smarter, of course.
The Wikipedia article claims that it is an urban legend that King was given two serves against Riggs's one and that King was allowed to hit into the doubles court area, so I won't argue with this now, but if either of those claims later turns out to be true when I search more about this, this "Battle of the Sexes" would be an absolutely perfect illustration of the reality of feminism and its typical Stalinist way of rewriting history.
With a little more searching, I came upon the page "Jon Wertheim's Tennis Mailbag", that offers this little story about the Williams sisters and a male player Karsten Braasch:
The Williams sisters, Venus and Serena, wouldn't argue with that assessment [that Braasch is a pain to play]. Their request for a male opponent at the 1998 Australian Open was met by the German, who had been on the golf course all morning. This is how Braasch remembers the day: 'They came into the ATP Office and said that they would like to play one of the men. I just happened to be in the room and they were saying that they thought they could beat someone who was ranked 200 in the world. At the time I was No. 203 and I said, "If you think you can beat me, we can go out there right now." With Serena, the score was 6-1 and then Venus came and asked to play, and I said, "If you want to play, we can play." That was 6-2. When they first came in they were looking at the media guide because they had seen someone practicing who they thought they could beat, and they wanted to know who it was. It was Francisco Clavet. When they said that, there were 10 guys on the floor. Afterward, Venus spoke to the press and said that maybe she could actually beat someone who was 350 in the world. But the thing is that I was due to lose all my points from the 1997 Australian Open the next week, so I told the press, "We can do it again next week when I am 350 if you like!"'
"Three years later Braasch has no plans for a rematch. 'I don't think it's necessary,' he says. 'I don't think after that match that you heard anything about men and women's tennis from the Williams sisters. Sometimes when I walk past them at a Grand Slam, they don't say anything, maybe they don't see me, but maybe they are a little bit embarrassed.'
As an aside, now that I searched for more information about Billie Jean King and came upon a biography page that had her picture on it (her Wikipedia page is lacking a picture, for some reason), I had to look at it for a while to convince myself that she is actually a woman. I can similarly remember the time when "Martina" was a colloquial synonym for a lesbian. So it's interesting that the modern crop of top female players is much more feminine. Of course, to be a top female athlete in a sport of speed and grace such as tennis it is a given that you necessarily have a pretty great body (it's strange how all those supposedly "fat and fit" people seem to be totally nonexistent in professional sports), but also their faces and overall style are attractive and camera-friendly to allow them to cash in on all kinds of modelling jobs. I can't immediately think of other sports where this was similarly routine for the top females.
My friend was an amateur player in college and saw the Riggs-King match. He says it was regarded (at least among players and commentators) as a complete mockery and joke that went clear over King's head. Riggs has a well-known history of playing stunts like this. It is amazing that this old man even made it to King (he defeated a number of other top players, I think including the second seed). The whole match was a humiliation of King and she was too stupid to realize it.
No matter how many steroids Williams takes, she will never be a challege for the top seeds on the men's court. Williams is probably more concerned about capitalizing on the few remaining years as a top pro she has left. In fact I'll bet real money this editorial was written by her father.
Posted by Udolpho | 12:10 PM
Ah, good old feminist argumentation, overusing emotional words such as "inferior", "worth" and "value".
Yes, it's undeniable that in tennis, women are inferior, consequently generating less interest in people and consequently selling sponsors/tickets less radically. The non sequitur is to assume that this single aspect of inferiority and low value would somehow generalize to every aspect of life.
Posted by Anonymous | 3:10 PM
Equality of pay in tennis is complicated by the fact that while the men would dominate the women in head-to-head play, the women's game is actually more popular these days. Justifying lower pay for women at Wimbledon simply because they can't defeat men would be like offering less prize money for a charismatic, world-champion undefeated lightweight boxer than for a run-of-the-mill, uninteresting heavyweight with a mediocre record, merely because the heavyweight's size advantage probably would allow him to defeat the lightweight if they fought one another.
Peter
My LIRR/NYCT blog
Posted by Anonymous | 6:07 PM
Peter has a very interesting point. On the other hand, it's non-obvious that a very elite smaller boxer couldn't beat a mediocre-champion heavyweight. It's just that one would never see that type of match often enough for it to matter because, a) the smaller boxer, even if he has a good chance of winning, knows that he also has a chance of being seriously injured; and b) the fight would be extremely boring if the little guy won, because it would presumably involve him landing a huge number of ineffectual shots and winning on points.
Posted by Otto Kerner | 7:07 PM
I think that Peter mentions the important point here.
The real question isn't is she a better player than the men, but do her matches bring in more spectators and dollars?
Posted by Glaivester | 8:00 PM
Otto -
There were some David-beats-Goliath matches in the early years of the UFC, when there were no weight classes, but those were due mainly to certain fighting styles being much more effective than others (esp. the early success of BJJ). Today, with most fighters being extensively cross-trained in different styles, the larger men would win most of the time if weight classes were abolished.
Peter
Iron Rails & Iron Weights
Posted by Anonymous | 9:59 PM
Women have to be segregated from the men to have any hope of winning a single match. Ergo, women's tennis is junior tennis, something less than the qualitatively best tennis. Popular players get millions in endorsement deals anyway, and what does the popularity of women's tennis have to do with the Wimbledon purse? Wimbledon pays more for the tennis champion than for the junior tennis champion. Seems reasonable to me. The audience is just there to watch--this isn't American Idol.
Posted by Udolpho | 10:27 PM
This story about two Winnipeg sisters who like to play hockey on the boys team caught my eye in today's Kaleva newspaper:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060629/hockey_girls_060629/20060629?hub=Canada
http://www.kaleva.fi/plus/index.cfm?j=581546
Herja
Posted by Anonymous | 4:10 AM
Well, Herja, I predict that as soon as those two young ladies get their faces shoved into the barriers or get knocked to the ice they will charge someone with sexual assault or common assault.
I smell a rat.
Posted by Loki on the run | 7:53 PM
This maybe offtopic, but the fact that women play maximun of three sets and men play five sets, I think it's fair that men get paid better. Pricemoney might be pretty equal if you counted it per hour?
Posted by Anonymous | 5:53 AM