Sunday, February 25, 2007

Love All

Mark Lawson has been chosen by the powers that be at the Guardian to respond to the news that women will finally be paid the same in prize money as men are at Wimbledon. Why they don't ask a female or at least feminist writer is beyond me. He makes a right mess of things. Firstly he goes into the oft-repeated-seldom-thought-through arguement that the women's game is short, three sets rather than five. The stupidity of this line of reasoning is illustrated by asking any female tennis player on the planet whether she'd rather play five sets for full money or three sets for less. The answer will not vary much.

He other key points include: "The truth is that - however assiduously women's football, cricket and rugby are encouraged - it is unlikely that millions of viewers will ever tune in to see a Paula Gascoigne or Andrea Flintoff in the finals of their tournaments." Which you can go tell to the American women whose sport is considerably more popular with both viewers and players than the male equivalent.

And "The sports that involve physical contact or some risk of death - major ball games and motor racing - simply seem more susceptible to testosterone." When did cricket become a sport with physical contact? And how many football players are subject to a risk of death? And if he's in the mood to tell Laila Ali about how her hormones are all wrong for participating in dangerous sports, he may not live to regret it.

I can't help thinking that if, as he claims, women are naturally less drawn to sports than men, since we all need exercise to stay healthy, we should respond by putting more money into womens sport to encourage greater participation.

The real issue here is equal opportunities. If women are not allowed to compete in the men's game, then the prize money must be the same - otherwise the opportunity to earn is different. Wimbledon's move is outrageously overdue and still only solves a tiny fraction of the problem but at least it is a move in the right direction. Inviting Mark Lawson to comment on women's issues clearly isn't.

2 comments:

Iceman said...

Hi Kate

"He other key points include: "The truth is that - however assiduously women's football, cricket and rugby are encouraged - it is unlikely that millions of viewers will ever tune in to see a Paula Gascoigne or Andrea Flintoff in the finals of their tournaments." Which you can go tell to the American women whose sport is considerably more popular with both viewers and players than the male equivalent."

Women's soccer may be more popular than men's soccer in the US, but it is still tiny when compared to men's baseball, American football, and basketball. Maybe if women's sports and female athletes got more respect, attention and support at all levels that wouldn't be the case, but right now it is.

"If women are not allowed to compete in the men's game, then the prize money must be the same - otherwise the opportunity to earn is different."

The prize money in most sports is put up by private sponsors. Would you suggest that a sponsor who wants its name on Ipswich's jersey should be required to spend an equal amount of money on a women's team?

"I can't help thinking that if, as he claims, women are naturally less drawn to sports than men, since we all need exercise to stay healthy, we should respond by putting more money into womens sport to encourage greater participation."

For about 30 years, the US has had a law that schools and universities have to offer equal athletic opportunities for males and females. It has led to a huge increase in the number of girls' and women's teams and girls and women playing sports.

It's controversial because many universities want their American football teams to stay competitive, which means having 90 players, so when told they have to have the same number of men and women's opportunities they cut out minor men's sports to preserve American football - sports like men's gymnastics, men's golf, and wrestling are rapidly going extinct at the university level.

"And "The sports that involve physical contact or some risk of death - major ball games and motor racing - simply seem more susceptible to testosterone.""

Women should dominate motor racing actually. Raw strength is not a factor, and every kilogram counts in Formula-1, so it would make sense to have 50 kg woman drivers instead of 65 kg men.

And having done martial arts I can testify that there are many women who are dedicated practitioners, and many women who achieve black belt rank or who fight in tournaments.

Does he think that women should stick to beach volleyball and ribbon gymnastics?

Cruella said...

"Would you suggest that a sponsor who wants its name on Ipswich's jersey should be required to spend an equal amount of money on a women's team?"

Yes! Absolutely. And if you applied the rule across the board, what would in fact happen is that the mens prize and sponsorship money would drop by around half as money was required to be shared. And that other half would go in to women's sport.

This would have the knock-on effect of making the currently ludicrous men's prize money somewhat less so.