Handicapped equality

[KrAzY3]

I was watching a Billy Jean King interview and I became irked at her protests regarding women tennis players making less than men.

On the surface, this does indeed seem unfair. I mean, why should they be paid less? Well, for starters how about the fact that they compete at a lower level? Consider this, the apex of women's tennis was Billy Jean King at age 29, beating Bobby Riggs at age 55 (King then turned down offers to play better senior players). I'm all for equality, but sports are performance based. Why does someone in the NBA make more than someone in the CBA? They are playing at a higher skill level.

I believe in true equality for all races and sexes. Believe me, I get pissed off to see women mistreated or treated on second class citizens. I enjoy seeing Wie competing against the men, and cheer for her. I hope Danica Patrick does well, I hope she kicks some ass. However, if we want true equality we can not promote it via handicaps. We can not set the standards lower, and seek the same rewards.

For example, a woman who wants to join the army does not need to meet the same requirements. She can do her push-ups from her knees. Mind you, these are people we are sending off to war! Yet, we are lowering the standards. I've heard of requiring female firefighters to carry two 60 pound dummies, rather than the 120 lb. dummy usually required. Sorry, but do you want the woman that only carried the 60 lb. dummies trying to save you?

The WNBA and all organized female basketball to my knowledge uses a smaller ball. They don't bring this up very often for obvious reasons. They want you to look at the shooting percentages and go wow, that's about as good as the guys. Why do I bringing all of this up? Our society has begun to give us mixed messages. A woman should get equal pay to a man, yet she also has to be allowed paternity leave. Equally qualified, who would you hire? If you have to give any sort of preferential treatment to one person, you are going to become less likely to hire them.

I fear that we are becoming misguided in our quest for "equality". Billy Jean King used to complain about the "shamatuers" that existed before professional tennis. Well, now we have another sham. We have pretend equality. Lower standards, yet we are supposed to overlook these and give the individuals equal pay. I feel that equal contributions should earn equal pay, but until we set the bar equally we have no right to demand equal reward.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I denounce all female leagues. I encourage them, I do however denounce regarding them as being equal to the "men's" leagues. The Silver Bullets (all female baseball team) are a perfect example. I liked the team, but they got demolished by professional teams and had to change over to a semi-pro schedule. Is it fair that men might have a advantage in certain physical activities? Perhaps not, but equality will not be carved out through lowering standards. Equality will be earned through the females that show, despite their disadvantages that they can meet the same criteria. This is not to say that women to not have obstacles in their way, of course they do. I'm just saying they should overcome them, not go around them.

Until then, I only hope that the females competing at lower levels do not continue their quest for handicapped equality too much. Not only can they potentially insure that women never really get to compete on a truly equal level, but they also might make it too lucrative for females to ever risk competing at a higher level.

These mentalities (my own and the ones I am complaining about) also exist in regards to other civil rights issues. Affirmative action and so on, no doubt came into existance through good intentions. Mind you, we should do what we can to insure people get a equal chance. On the inverse, we have to do everything in our power to insure that they do in fact meet the same criteria.

[Alonzo]

A woman should get equal pay to a man, yet she also has to be allowed paternity leave. Equally qualified, who would you hire? If you have to give any sort of preferential treatment to one person, you are going to become less likely to hire them.


Paternity leave is becoming more common, and is already practiced in certain jobs.

But you'd have a point if
A. Qualified women had the opportunity to play in mens leagues. While this nrarely is set in stone (I think tennis is one of the few where it's strictly segregated), they have no realistic chance of entering a mens league unless their skills are off the charts. They wouldn't get in for being the equivalent of an average male player.

B. If womens games made less. In the sports they do, like basketball, women do get paid less. But, in the end, spectator sports are about entertainment. If I remember correctly, women's tennis brings in more money and has higher ratings. At worst they're about equal to men.

And if it weren't for the williams sisters, ann kournikova (ya, I know she's not very good), maria sharapova (or whatever her name is), would tennis be as popular as it is today? Who do you think most would want to see, serena williams or andre agassi?

[KrAzY3]

Paternity leave is something I have no problem with, but I can see a employer using it as a excuse to pay female employees less (I suppose my complaint would be more along the lines of anything that would mandate it by law). My point in that regard is that it gives people a excuse to pay women less. Is it fair that men can't get pregnant? It isn't, but my point is in regard to women getting a true equal chance. If we go too far in insulating females from the rigors of the tasks, we risk insuring that we might never be on a even playing field. Take for example the smaller basketball. I'm sure it seemed like a good idea, but now of a female wants to compete against men on any level they have to adjust to a larger basketball.

As far as your points go:
A: Women have been given a chance in many sports. Does it mean they had a easy time? Of course not, but take the Silver Bullets for example. They competed for years, a few years in the AA Northern League league and then they changed over to a semi-pro schedule. The reason they changed was because they were getting slaughtered. Only two or three of their players were able to compete at all with the AA level players. Mind you, AA ball is two steps below the major leagues. In racing, we've had several females, in golf we've seen Sorenstan and Wie do surprisingly well, but not exceptionally well. Manon Rheaume played junior and semi-pro hockey, but she never made it to a higher level (nor did she play well enough to warrant it). In almost all sports, you've had at least one female make it far enough to have a shot but I can't think of any (besides racing) that have gone beyond mediocre. I think it is true that their skills have to be "off the chart" but only off the chart in relation to their female counterparts. Men both have a physical advantage, and play sports in greater numbers. Most male athletes don't have a shot at going pro, so of course it takes a exceptional woman to do the same.

B: As far as I know, only female tennis garner comparable ratings and the like. There's something that is being obscured though. Another "handicap" and that is the fact that women play 3 sets and men play 5. While they do in fact earn similar ratings, the earn those ratings for a shorter period of time. Ironically, the argument for paying women less is derived from the fact that women were given a shorter period of time to play, which of course was to make it easier on them. If women played as much, then the earnings should be equal provided they garnered comparable ratings and the like, as it stands now though they've limited their exposure. Otherwise, I concede the point that it should be earnings based. But, while I've heard the argument with a few sports, tennis is the only one major sport I've seen in which the females come close to garnering equal attention. The final insult here, is that it is changing. Some people are moving towards paying each equally, somewhat blindly. They expect the men to play 5 sets and the women to play 3, yet they intend to pay both equally as though they contributed equally, irregardless of TV revenue, etc... just to be more "PC". The long-term result could be somewhat disheartening. We might eventually become entirely blind to the product, to the result... hell why give the winner anything at all? Why not just give everyone a equal amount for trying to win?

Finally, I'm not against or degrading the contributions of female athletes. I admire them. I simply worry that our habit of both trying to "even the playing field" on one hand, then trying to get equal pay on the other is in fact setting any real chance of equality back.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Women in sports will earn the same as men when the marketplace shows as much demand for their skills as the men. You can't justify paying the best WNBA player as much as the best NBA player when they play in front of 8,000 people at $25 a head vs. 18,000 at $75 a head. Or the NBA having a $1 billion TV contract and the WNBA having a $5 million TV contract.

I was under the impression that women tennis players actually made more than the men or it's pretty damn close. Obviously the LPGA in competition with the PGA is in the same boat of the WNBA/NBA, the money and consumer demand just isn't there. Figure skating professional women earn more than the men in general.

[KrAzY3]

For the record, I obscured my initial point a bit.

My complaint was along the lines of Billy Jean claiming women should get equal pay. She did not base this on any argument, other than it not being "fair". I do agree that it should be earnings based. I just didn't like the tone or direction of her argument. If she used statistics and figures, that would be one thing. But her complaint was simply that it wasn't equal. While PAD's statement should remain true, I fear eventually it will not. If we are told something is "unfair" enough, eventually we start to believe it and buy into it. Eventually any events that feature both male and female competition can be pressured into paying all winners equally because it is "fair" and become entirely blind to who it is that was actually earning them money.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

If female pay were made equal for men's and women's sports organized women's professional sports would vanish instantly. No WNBA team can afford 1/10th the NBA salary cap. Same is true for the WTA and LPGA. Sponsorships would dry up because money would be lost if pay equality in athletics became an issue. No one is going to lose money based on "equality".

Is it sexist that there isn't the demand for women's basketball as men's? No, not in my opinion. High flying is what people want in basketball. Until women start flying from the foul line on their way to a dunk they won't attract the interest.

No one is going to go see fast pitch softball either. Does it take skill to play? Yes. I have no interest in watching 5 hit games that end 2-1 and a bloop single over the shortstop is a major game event.

Women's tennis and figure skating are the only sports where I think the women are as entertaining if not better than the men. I don't see anything wrong by not gluing my eyeballs to something I have no interest in just for ratings and revenue to create equality.

[KrAzY3]

Well, one reason I think this is being pushed in tennis is because you have women and men competing in the same event. If you look, for instance the French Open pays the winners the same amount. Interestingly enough, the rest of the pay out isn't equal. WNBA and NBA, for instance (although for the record the NBA has funded the league some) can't get away with trying to give equal pay because they operate separately. With the French Open, they can just take money that the men hypothetically earned (my understand is that males do have higher revenue, just not substantially so) and give some of that to the women without affecting the books. All they have to do is reduce the pay out to the men. It can become sort of like revenue sharing in baseball or the NFL.

Look, the pay shouldn't be equal, period. Any argument demanding equal pay is bs. If the women earn more for the event, pay them more. If the men earn more, pay them more. But any argument appealing to it being "unfair" is ridiculous. It is like socialism in sports, which is pretty insane considering sports is about as performance based as you can get.

In either case, my concerns are about the potential long-term affects. If we are brow beaten into paying male and females equally in tennis events, then eventually we'll hear the call for "equality" in other events. While now, it might seem insane to pay WNBA and NBA players equally, if we lose perspective enough we could move in that direction. Revenue sharing across leagues, pay reductions for males, even legislation... it seems far fetched but if society becomes programmed with a certain mentality, if left unchecked it can continue on.

[Alonzo]

Well, one reason I think this is being pushed in tennis is because you have women and men competing in the same event. If you look, for instance the French Open pays the winners the same amount. Interestingly enough, the rest of the pay out isn't equal. WNBA and NBA, for instance (although for the record the NBA has funded the league some) can't get away with trying to give equal pay because they operate separately. With the French Open, they can just take money that the men hypothetically earned (my understand is that males do have higher revenue, just not substantially so) and give some of that to the women without affecting the books. All they have to do is reduce the pay out to the men. It can become sort of like revenue sharing in baseball or the NFL.

Look, the pay shouldn't be equal, period. Any argument demanding equal pay is bs. If the women earn more for the event, pay them more. If the men earn more, pay them more. But any argument appealing to it being "unfair" is ridiculous. It is like socialism in sports, which is pretty insane considering sports is about as performance based as you can get.

In either case, my concerns are about the potential long-term affects. If we are brow beaten into paying male and females equally in tennis events, then eventually we'll hear the call for "equality" in other events. While now, it might seem insane to pay WNBA and NBA players equally, if we lose perspective enough we could move in that direction. Revenue sharing across leagues, pay reductions for males, even legislation... it seems far fetched but if society becomes programmed with a certain mentality, if left unchecked it can continue on.


Much of the concern seems to be slippery slope logic. I don't think anyone would suggest a league making less money (nba vs. wnba) should be paying well beyond their means.

But, if you have a wnba player who played on an equal level as Kirk Hinrich, she would never make an NBA salary unless the wnba skyrocketed in popularity. Women now go to the WNBA, and that's where she would be, making a WNBA players salary. Maybe before the WNBA, but not now. That's an issue though, again, no one is going to suggest the WNBA teams should pay a salary that's well beyond their means.

Though, even pre-WNBA, I don't think a WNBA player who played as well as Luke Walton, Malik Rose, Bob Sura etc. would ever make the NBA. She'd like never make the salary of that man simply because of her gender, not due to lack of skills.

The salary cap for a wnba team is 700,000. The most a player can be played is 91,000. The minimum 31,000 and many players also play in europe to supplement their salary. Hell, the #1 pick can only make 42k a year until their 4 year contract is up.
http://womensbasketballonline.com/wnba/rosters/salary.html

In the NBA, the minimum salary for any player is $398,762. That's rookie, and it jumps to 641,748 for second year players. By the time you're in your third year, an NBA player's minimum is more than the max for an entire WNBA team. http://www.insidehoops.com/minimum-nba-salary.shtml

But, again, no one is pushing for increased pay (well, equivalent to men) because the WNBA does not have the funds.

But, in Tennis, you have the women bringing in massive money, equal to or more than the men, therefore there's no excuse for paying them less. It's the same organization taking in the money, and they have the means to pay them equally. Personally I think the women should threaten to boycott the event to prove their point. I can't imagine any major tournament not caving in rather quickly to avoid cancellation of women's event and the negative publicity.

Also, I'm sure Billy Jean King would argue that women tennis players can compete with men. I don't know what skill level they are one when compared to men, other than I'm pretty sure some professional women players can surpass some professional male players.

The problem is there is no way for a woman to make equal money. The chance is not there. She's a woman and she has to make less because of it. Theoretically, a woman could be the equal of Michael Jordan, yet she'd make a WNBA player salary. A woman tennis player could outperform ever other tennis player, yet make less. The argument that less skilled players should make less is fine (though I think revenue should be a bigger factor in many instances, since the money has to go somewhere), but only when both genders have the same earning potential. They do not.

[Deacon]

I don't know if you noticed about the thing on the first post about how women don't get as tough a training as men, the reason, I'll tell you if you look at goarmy.com, and look at the careers, 50% of the jobs like combat foot soldier are marked with little logos that say Women are N/A, they are not permitted in this day to get postions in the military that require intense training

[KrAzY3]

Much of the concern seems to be slippery slope logic. I don't think anyone would suggest a league making less money (nba vs. wnba) should be paying well beyond their means.

But, if you have a wnba player who played on an equal level as Kirk Hinrich, she would never make an NBA salary unless the wnba skyrocketed in popularity. Women now go to the WNBA, and that's where she would be, making a WNBA players salary. Maybe before the WNBA, but not now. That's an issue though, again, no one is going to suggest the WNBA teams should pay a salary that's well beyond their means.


Some might eventually suggest that the NBA place increased restrictions on pay and put that money into WNBA salaries. That might seem far fetched, but revenue sharing exists on a non-logical basis already in sports (large market teams giving money to small market [read: low fan support, the markets are not based on potential fans but actual fans, rewarding a poor product]). If we can already say that they have to give away money just because they made more, then it really isn't a far cry if this thing gets out of hand. In either case, part of my argument is slippery slope but not all of it.

I, for one believe that as things stand now, a competent female athlete in most sports would be given a chance to play. This isn't exclusively in the field either, Pat Summit for example was given a chance to coach the men's team and turned it down. Lucy Harris was drafted but never tried out for the then New Orleans Jazz. I believe a woman played in the McDonald's high school All American game this year. I want to see women perform well, and while they might have a limited chance, believe you me if they do it on the court it will be recognized. Are you telling me a guy like Cuban would keep a woman off the court if he felt it would help him win? However, if we go too far in trying to manufacture artificial equality we could eventually prevent and real hope of a truly even playing surface that gave women both the chance and motivation to compete alongside the men


I don't know if you noticed about the thing on the first post about how women don't get as tough a training as men, the reason, I'll tell you if you look at goarmy.com, and look at the careers, 50% of the jobs like combat foot soldier are marked with little logos that say Women are N/A, they are not permitted in this day to get postions in the military that require intense training


I didn't say as tough training, I said they don't have to meet the same entrance requirements. This is a bit of a difference, a guy could fail and a woman could pass and yet perform equally. This is another example of artificial equality. I want women to have a equal chance, but I mean a REAL equal chance not a better chance than men at certain jobs and no chance at other jobs. That's not equal... and that's really the heart of my complaint. Don't make pretend equality, make real equality. Give women a real chance, but on the flip side we have to give them the same requirements. Otherwise, how is that fair? How is it fair to tell a man, you can't get this job because you didn't do well enough, even though he outperformed some women who got the job? On the other hand, how is it fair to tell a woman who did as well as any of the men that they can only do certain tasks?

[Labrocca]

Women's tennis and figure skating are the only sports where I think the women are as entertaining if not better than the men.Â*Â*I don't see anything wrong by not gluing my eyeballs to something I have no interest in just for ratings and revenue to create equality.


I like to watch Woman's Volleyball.Â*Â*:)Â*Â*Gymnastics are cool too.Â*Â*

[Buck Laser]

Let me get this straight: you guys are discussing women athletes under the heading of handicapped equality? Have I wandered into the asylum by mistake?