Gender Equality in Pro Tennis?

As is only just and fair, women deserve equal pay for equal work


The question is: should women receive the same pay as men when they do not have to work as much as their male counterparts? And if they are paid the same for less work does that not demean women by suggesting that they are unable to put forth the same amount of effort as their male colleagues?


The issue pertains to professional women's tennis. At the four major tennis tournaments, the women are paid the same as the  men, but the women play "the-best-of-three set" matches while the men are required to play the "the-the-best-of-five-set" matches. The difference is significant on many levels. First of all, there is the issue of the time and energy required to play a "best-of-five-set" match, many of which can last up to five or more hours.If Serena Williams wins two sets, perhaps in an hour and fifteen minutes , she is in the locker room taking a relaxing shower. On the other hand, if Raphael Nadal wins two sets, he faces the prospect of playing three more sets before going to the showers with a loss. If,  in this scenario, Serena wins and Rafa loses, he has entertained tennis fans much longer  than Serena, but receives less compensation. Not exactly equal!


And then there is the question: would the woman who wins two sets be the winner if the match were a "best-of-five"?


No one I know would suggest that professional women tennis players should receive less compensation, but many would question why they do not play "the-best-of-five-sets" in the majors since they receive the same money as the men. Since there is no question that the women are more than capable of playing "the-best-of five-set" matches, one has to wonder why the tennis powers are so reluctant to adopt total equality.

GOP Working for Failure

Mitch McConnell & Michele Bachmann

Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the leader of the Senate Republicans, has said that his party's job is to make sure that the President of the United States fails. Since then, Michele Bachmann, a Tea Party congresswoman from Minnesota, has adopted the same stance. 


Is this what our Founding Fathers had in mind? In their wildest dreams could they have ever imagined that a leading senator and a congresswoman running to become the Republican candidate for president would want the President of the United States, and therefore our country,  to fail in the cause of their own political ambitions?


Most Americans presume that when a senator or representative places his/her hand on the Bible and  takes the oath of office, she or he is committed to the "general welfare" of our country as stipulated in the in the Constitution of the United States of America. Apparently, for some Republican politicians, political gain is more important than the welfare of our country. 


Is it any wonder then that some Republicans brought the country to the edge of defaulting on its debt?


Whether one likes him or not, Barack Obama is the President of our country. If he fails, the country fails. When George W. Bush failed and did so repeatedly, our country suffered and still is suffering as a result. One would think it inconceivable that an official of our government who has taken an oath to "promote the general Welfare" (1st paragraph of the Constitution) would work for the failure of the President and the country. What is even more amazing is that McConnell and Bachmann voice this aloud.

Cablevision vs. Tennis Channel

In the middle of the 2011 US Open Tennis Tournament,  cable television companies across the country, including Buckeye Cablesystem in northwest Ohio, are not broadcasting the Tennis Channel.


In the real world most of us inhabit, it makes no sense for cable companies and the Tennis Channel to eliminate one of their largest audiences on Labor Day weekend. However, if you inhabit the world of corporate greed, it makes perfect sense. According to the New York Times (9/5/11) the Tennis Channel and the National Cable Television Cooperative have a new contract which requires Cablevision to place Tennis Channel on a broad, basic subscriber package. Prior to this Cable companies were offering Tennis Channel on a more expensive level of service, for example, part of a sports package. The Tennis Channel wants broader availability; cable operators want to continue charging extra fees. The result: subscribers who paid extra to view the Tennis Channel are not being served! Great example of "Corporate Think."


All of which goes to the heart of cablevision's "all-or-nothing" marketing. For years subscribers have pleaded with Congress to require cable operators to allow customers to choose and then pay for the channels they actually want. Why do customers have to pay for channels they never watch and never wanted? Personally, I could do without SPROUT, MTV, OXYGEN, GOD TV, and a hundred other channels I will never watch.


If viewers had the freedom to pick and choose what they wanted, this present fiasco with Tennis Channel and N.C.T.C.  would not exist. I would purchase  the Tennis Channel and my neighbor would purchase the Bullfighting Channel.