Re: Articles & interviews
I am not at all against Equal Pay in tennis. I'm against ppl who thinks if you are against equal pay, you must be some kind of moron/sexist. I do not believe Equal Pay in tennis is fair, because to me Women's tennis is no comparison to Men's. That is not because I'm a moron or sexist, that's because I too am a person that thinks the market operates on economic functions. On the other hands, I think equal pay is an issue bigger than economic, and equal pay in tennis is a lot more on a gender platform than on an economic one. I have no problem with that. It is there and it shouldn't be changed.
All I have been pointing out is, Simon said he has also been making his points based on economic factors. You don't have to agree with his statistic or perceptions, but you cannot say it is not a valid point to be considered. If you argue by Women's tennis is actually more attractive and get more revenue, that does not invalidate the economic factors, in fact you are agreeing with him that economic is a factor by citing a parallel example with just different data. If you want to throw economic out of the equation, then you are operating on a gender platform, which is also a platform, just not the same as his, which is quite okay. But by doing that, you should also be big enough to accept that the issue can be argue in various platforms, economics or ideology.
And lastly, if you think his economic facts are incorrect, based on your eyeballing a particular match that you happen to witness, that's fine. But your point is no different than his then. Cos you accuse him of not having all the right facts, then can you say that your fact is all correct just based on what you have eyeballed? No, you can't. So while you invalidate his points, you are also invalidated your own points. So I am just wanting to point out how not objective ppl's argument are when they accuse Simon's argument of being subjective and not at all correct.
Bottomline is, why is it not okay to argument an issue when the argument is based on economics anyway? To me, ppl generally just don't think EP should be argued at all because it is not the economic factors that determine equal pay, hence, it's a Taboo. If that's the case, then does that kind of make the point that equal pay doesn't work in economic term? Because if economics data supports equal pay then for sure they will have no problem using it as a supporting data, don't you think? Because in any other industries, that is exactly what is being used to demand Equal Pay, that if women generate the same economic values to a company in any industry, then they should be paid equally. It is an economic argument whether you like it or not. This leaves us to argue whether or not it is true that women generate the same economic value or not, a valid argument nevertheless, in whatever industry including sports, no? The only disagreement that can occur is how do we measure economic values. From there, subjective measurement comes into play that varies the result. So back to Simon, he gave an argument that every Equal Pay activist has been using for the Equal Pay platform. It is only because Tennis is the only environment that Equal Pay exists and therefore, by raising this same argument, he is not labeled as a EP activist but rather a sexist moron. How ironic, to me anyway.
Last edited by lalaland : 07-01-2012 at 11:26 PM.