From: rpsingh@uwovax.uwo.ca
Subject: Re: A Wimbledon Doubt (Re: More about India)
Organization: University of Western Ont, London
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:30:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.135359.28807@news2.cis.umn.edu>, prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
> (Srinivas Aluru) writes:
>>Which of the following is true?
>>1) Women are as capable as men and hence they should be given equal
>>   opportunity and respect.
>>
>>2) Women are less powerful than men (for whatever reasons) but in the
>>   interest of fairness, they sould be given equal opportunity and respect.
> 
> Excellent point!
> 
> Let me give you an example. It is a fact that professional women tennis
> players earn less than professional men tennis players on an average.
> Both Wimbledon and US Open pay the the female champion less than the male
> champion.
> 
> Several female players have been complaining bitterly about this apparent
> inequity. I got into serious trouble when I staked my position before, but
> I believe in this strongly: It is not unfair for the men's champion to
> be paid more than the women's champion. 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 1. Notwithstanding our individual opinions, it has been shown that
>    audience find women's tennis less exciting than men's tennis.
>    Obviously, many of us are not willing to forsake an afternoon
>    siesta to watch 60mph serves and tedious baseline play, relatively
>    speaking.
> 
> 2. Naturally, fewer people watch the Ladies Final and so the ad
>    revenues are less. We cannot expect a tournament to pay out
>    prize money without apt revenue justification.
> 
> 3. Now, if we were to pay female champion the same as the male
>    champion, does not fairness then dictate that we pay the same
>    to the junior (male and female) champion and veteran's 
>    champion (male and female). Somehow Chrissie Evert does not
>    seem to be concerned about this dimension of equity.
> 
> If we don't get caught in the wide screen issue of gender bias
> and angst for equity, the current disparity in the championship
> payouts, in my opinion, is quite fair! It should however be
> modified if there are viewership preference changes.
> 
> Roger.....
> 
> Satya Prabhakar
I can't agree more. I just have to add one more point. 
 4. If we were to pay female champion the same, doesn't it require that
they too play best of five sets rather than three. I don't remember( may
be I'm ignorant here) them saying that they are ready to play five sets
if the prize money was same. Is it fair??
-- 

*******************************************************************************
`It's foolish to be wise in the company of fools.' 
                                                     
*******************************************************************************
Ravi P. Singh                    *    E-mail: rpsingh@hydra.uwo.ca
Dept. of Physics                 *    Phone : (519)-679-2111 Ext.6556 [off]
University of Western Ontario    *            (519)-433-6291 [Res.]
London N6A 3K7, Ontario          *    Fax   : (519)-661-2033 
 C A N A D A                     *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian