Tennis Anyone?
Yet another example of Gender equality....Femikook style...
This weekend, I was discussing this Wimbledon crap with a female friend of mine. A real friend, mind you. I was somewhat surprised to see that she believed that the so-called "equal pay" plan now in place was equitable the right thing. I argued the simple point (as we all know) that women play almost 50% less time than the men and thus, should not be getting the same payout for less work.
Her argument, although she is most certainly NOT a femikook, was that it is economics. Women’s tennis brings in the same amount of revenue that the men’s do and should be paid accordingly. I disagree with that as well, but I digress. No amount of arguing was going to sway her. I was somewhat taken aback at her apparent femikook argumentative style…. I just couldn’t understand how an obviously intelligent woman couldn’t see this for what it really is. Bullshit gender politics with a dash of bullshit, mixed in a pot of misandry.
Anyhow, while traveling through the blogosphere today, I came across an individual that took the time to analyze this a little further. Interestingly enough, when you break it down to the nuts-n-bolts of it all as he did that women, in fact, are NOT paid equally; they are paid MORE THAN THE MEN for less work! Therefore, by raising their purse to the supposedly higher purse level of the men conveniently extends the already HIGHER PAY FOR WOMEN to and even HIGHER rate for less work. I know, I know; it is just so difficult to understand that three is less than five. So once again, we are using the feminists’ “new math” to remove the mythical pay disparity. Kudos to the femikooks, once again!
As for his belief that women cannot play to the level of the men or should I say Venus Williams, I call shenanigans. Women can play just as well and as long. I have seen them do it!
Anyhow, have a look (Linked to his original post above & edited for typos only.)
___________________________
So a few notable women have started bleating how its "unfair" that men are paid more than women, and the male winner's purse at Wimbledon is "£30,000 m ore" than the women's purse. Sadly, Tony Blair has now backed this.
Before everyone starts losing their heads over this feminist machine, do we care to even analyze the figures? Lets do that:
1) +Total Prize money for men = £5,197,440
+Total Prize money for women = £4,429 440
2) Male winner's takings = £655,000
Female winner's takings = £625,000
From the above figures, without any other factors, yes it looks like women are getting a bum deal, however, if we assume same number of entrants (128 men and 128 women as with this year's) and no tie-breaks are played:
3) Maximum number of sets played by men = 5
Maximum number of sets played by women = 3
Minimum number of sets played by men = 3
Minimum number of sets played by women = 2
4) Total prize money per set (male) = £1,039,488
Total prize money per set (female) = £1,476,480
Is it me, or did anyone just notice the ladies purse perset get dramatically larger (by almost £450,000) than the men's? Lets carry on.
5) Male winner's taking's per set (of 5) = £131,000
Female winner's takings per set(of 3) = £208,000
Male winner's takings per set (of 3) = £218,333
Female winner's takings per set(of 2) = £312,500
So we can clearly see, by playing fewer sets, women are in fact currently getting paid MORE to do less work. As this is these players main income, i.e. what they do for a living, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't a lot of women today currently protesting about unequal pay to male counterparts for doing the same amount of work in the same job? Let's hear what Venus Williams has to say:
(Start of Quote)
"Women and men should be treated equally. This is an amazing sport and there is as much interest in women's tennis as there is in men's. Just because we can't play five sets because of our genes, what can we do?"
(End of Quote)
So its settled then, I guess she means IF by some physical advantage (that no one has control over) men are subject to do more work, then pay is irrelevant and women should be REWARDED for their GENETIC INABILITY to do the same work, or better yet, men should be PENALISED for their UNCONTROLLABLE ABILITY to do more work, amount of time playing should not matter, and number of sets played should not matter.
I am sorry, but this sounds like the feminist machine wanting to turn a situation COMPLETELY in its favor whilst penalizing men, and at the same time, protesting in the name of "equality". Note how the "equality" angle only refers to pay, not the amount of work done to earn that pay. Seems very convenient isn't it. What do you all think?
__________________________
Welcome to the new world order of Equalllleteeeeeee! WHEW! I am just so glad that THAT injustice was corrected, aren’t you!
TMOTS
Click here for more.This weekend, I was discussing this Wimbledon crap with a female friend of mine. A real friend, mind you. I was somewhat surprised to see that she believed that the so-called "equal pay" plan now in place was equitable the right thing. I argued the simple point (as we all know) that women play almost 50% less time than the men and thus, should not be getting the same payout for less work.
Her argument, although she is most certainly NOT a femikook, was that it is economics. Women’s tennis brings in the same amount of revenue that the men’s do and should be paid accordingly. I disagree with that as well, but I digress. No amount of arguing was going to sway her. I was somewhat taken aback at her apparent femikook argumentative style…. I just couldn’t understand how an obviously intelligent woman couldn’t see this for what it really is. Bullshit gender politics with a dash of bullshit, mixed in a pot of misandry.
Anyhow, while traveling through the blogosphere today, I came across an individual that took the time to analyze this a little further. Interestingly enough, when you break it down to the nuts-n-bolts of it all as he did that women, in fact, are NOT paid equally; they are paid MORE THAN THE MEN for less work! Therefore, by raising their purse to the supposedly higher purse level of the men conveniently extends the already HIGHER PAY FOR WOMEN to and even HIGHER rate for less work. I know, I know; it is just so difficult to understand that three is less than five. So once again, we are using the feminists’ “new math” to remove the mythical pay disparity. Kudos to the femikooks, once again!
As for his belief that women cannot play to the level of the men or should I say Venus Williams, I call shenanigans. Women can play just as well and as long. I have seen them do it!
Anyhow, have a look (Linked to his original post above & edited for typos only.)
___________________________
So a few notable women have started bleating how its "unfair" that men are paid more than women, and the male winner's purse at Wimbledon is "£30,000 m ore" than the women's purse. Sadly, Tony Blair has now backed this.
Before everyone starts losing their heads over this feminist machine, do we care to even analyze the figures? Lets do that:
1) +Total Prize money for men = £5,197,440
+Total Prize money for women = £4,429 440
2) Male winner's takings = £655,000
Female winner's takings = £625,000
From the above figures, without any other factors, yes it looks like women are getting a bum deal, however, if we assume same number of entrants (128 men and 128 women as with this year's) and no tie-breaks are played:
3) Maximum number of sets played by men = 5
Maximum number of sets played by women = 3
Minimum number of sets played by men = 3
Minimum number of sets played by women = 2
4) Total prize money per set (male) = £1,039,488
Total prize money per set (female) = £1,476,480
Is it me, or did anyone just notice the ladies purse perset get dramatically larger (by almost £450,000) than the men's? Lets carry on.
5) Male winner's taking's per set (of 5) = £131,000
Female winner's takings per set(of 3) = £208,000
Male winner's takings per set (of 3) = £218,333
Female winner's takings per set(of 2) = £312,500
So we can clearly see, by playing fewer sets, women are in fact currently getting paid MORE to do less work. As this is these players main income, i.e. what they do for a living, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't a lot of women today currently protesting about unequal pay to male counterparts for doing the same amount of work in the same job? Let's hear what Venus Williams has to say:
(Start of Quote)
"Women and men should be treated equally. This is an amazing sport and there is as much interest in women's tennis as there is in men's. Just because we can't play five sets because of our genes, what can we do?"
(End of Quote)
So its settled then, I guess she means IF by some physical advantage (that no one has control over) men are subject to do more work, then pay is irrelevant and women should be REWARDED for their GENETIC INABILITY to do the same work, or better yet, men should be PENALISED for their UNCONTROLLABLE ABILITY to do more work, amount of time playing should not matter, and number of sets played should not matter.
I am sorry, but this sounds like the feminist machine wanting to turn a situation COMPLETELY in its favor whilst penalizing men, and at the same time, protesting in the name of "equality". Note how the "equality" angle only refers to pay, not the amount of work done to earn that pay. Seems very convenient isn't it. What do you all think?
__________________________
Welcome to the new world order of Equalllleteeeeeee! WHEW! I am just so glad that THAT injustice was corrected, aren’t you!
TMOTS
posted by The Man On The Street at 10:23 AM
3 comments
