Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Feminists Rejoice!!!!! Woo HOOOOOOO

35 replies

NotanOtter · 22/02/2007 11:23

about time too!

OP posts:
itsmeNDaveP · 22/02/2007 11:24

I saw this on the news this morning. Hurrah

edam · 22/02/2007 11:25

Agree.

southeastastra · 22/02/2007 11:26

men play for longer though don't they

nearlythree · 22/02/2007 11:27

I agree that women should get equal pay, that is so obvious it doesn't need saying.

But I fail to understand why women still only play three sets. That it tantamount to saying they are too frail to last the pace, which is nonsense.

Eleusis · 22/02/2007 11:30

yippee

slug · 22/02/2007 11:39

That will upset Tiger tim Henman, who was firmly against the idea of women getting the same prize money. Shame

Eleusis · 22/02/2007 11:40

He's just jealous because he is never going to get it. Loser.

Original poster
NotanOtter · 22/02/2007 11:41

was he slug - how abhorrent

OP posts:
donnie · 22/02/2007 11:42

not sure about this: if women play shorter games then surely they should be paid commensurately? if you do more, you get paid more, no?

Although frankly I find tennis dull and tennis players even duller so I'm not that bothered!

Saturn74 · 22/02/2007 11:43

games should be the same length then.

Eleusis · 22/02/2007 11:46

Do women play shorter games? I thought they just played fewer games?

donnie · 22/02/2007 11:49

woman can play two sets but men always play a minimum of three.

Freckle · 22/02/2007 11:52

I don't think this does women any favours at all. It's like saying we are worthy of equal money, but not of equal work.

If women want the same money, they should be prepared to do the same work for it - i.e. minimum of 3 sets, max of 5.

mm22bys · 22/02/2007 12:02

Agree. Equal pay for equal work. Imagine the uproar if we only worked part-time but still got full-time salaries / wages.

I am all for equality, but if they want the same pay as the men, make them play best of 5 sets too.

Would be very dull though, even alot of the best of 3 sets are so one-sided!

Caligula · 22/02/2007 12:10

No, it's acknowledging that men and women are different but equal.

Saying that they should play the same as men do, is like saying that the man's game is the norm. It's not. Women are 50% of the population. And they're different from men, so of course their game is different. Doesn't mean it's inferior though.

paulaplumpbottom · 22/02/2007 12:40

This is good news. Its something that has gotten up my nose for a long time.

nearlythree · 22/02/2007 12:50

Sorry, but to say that women can't play five stes of tennis just goes back to the dark ages when they weren't allowed to run marathons or even take part in 10,000m or triple jump. If Paula Radcliffe can run a marathon then Amelie Mauresmo can play five sets of tennis. Agree with Freckle, it's women expecting special treatment, not equality.

paulaplumpbottom · 22/02/2007 12:56

I do agree that women can play five sets. Women who play tennis are so athletic now. Venus Williams could probably do more than that no bother.

Freckle · 22/02/2007 13:07

At the end of the day, tennis is a form of entertainment. Would you expect to pay the same price for a ticket to see a show that only lasted 30 minutes as you would for one which lasts 5 hours? Shows of similar style and entertainment value? No, you wouldn't. You'd expect to pay more for the longer show.

It is the fans who end up paying a large proportion of the winnings and, if I were paying £100 to see a match and were given the choice of a men's match or a women's match, I know which would be better value for money.

TeetheCeeofDavedom · 22/02/2007 13:13

I can't believe that this has only just happened. It's just so stupid and archaic to pay women less and give them shorter playing times. It's just pathetic. Oh a woman can go through hours and hours of labour and push a child out of her vag but she can't play a game of tennis for the same length of time as a a man. Oh kiss my arse!

Original poster
NotanOtter · 22/02/2007 13:15

wonder if the 'trophy' will still be a plate

OP posts:
Blu · 22/02/2007 13:18

Are Wimbledon tickets cheaper for women's games?

glitterfairy · 22/02/2007 13:19

Brilliant news and about time too.

Spidermama · 22/02/2007 13:20

Fantastic. About time indeed. In a few years we'll look back and say, 'And do you know, it was only a few years ago that men got paid significantly more than women at wimbledon' and our kids will go

Let's hope employers take a look and it leads the way for a pay revolution which is also ridiculously overdue. Don't get me started on this as I can feel theblood pressure creeping up.

Caligula · 22/02/2007 13:46

Er, I wouldn't judge an entertainment by how long it is, tbh. Just because Wagner's operas go on for 2 days, it wouldn't make me pay more for the ticket than a nice Verdi!

I also don't think many people would be impressed by the argument that they should pay more for a ticket to see a two and a half hour film, than an hour's circus show. And if the NT started to do Shakespeare's plays unedited and charge more for the longer versions, no-one would go.

Surely you judge each entertainment on its own terms, not on how long it takes versus another form of entertainment.