An Issue of Equality at Wimbledon

This year's Wimbledon championships are about to begin at the All England Club. The news thus far has centered around the organizers decision to award equal prize money to men and women players, finally caving in to protests and pressure from many of the leading women on tour. They are also introducing the hawkeye system allowing players to challenge line calls after its success at last year's US Open and this year's Australian Open (the system is redundant at the Roland Garros because of ballmarks left on clay).

I can't say that I fully support the decision to award equal prize money (a statement which is liable to provoke the fury of the feminists out there). This stems from my general unease with the feminist movement's attempts to obtain "equality" for women in all areas. To begin with, the very fact remains that the men play best of five set matches and the women play only best of three. So perhaps one could justify the fact that the men were given more prize money by the simple fact that on average, they spent a lot more time on court.

A friend of mine argued that this was an unfair argument to make, given the physical differences between the two sexes. Since men have greater stamina and endurance, it is natural that their matches can go on for longer, and in any professional sport the aim is to test the athletes to their limits which differs for men and women. Once this goal is attained, we should reward both sexes equally.

I accept that in principle, but I can simply point out that we do discriminate based on naturally occurring characteristics. People who are naturally more intelligent tend to get rewarded in society with higher salaries (which come after they get into elite academic institutions that purport to discriminate on intelligence). The great failure of the communist and socialist system was their attempt to apply the principle of equality in a way where everyone was rewarded equally for working to the best of their ability. Nobody is going to remotely reach their maximum potential without some incentive to do so, especially if you are not going to taste the fruits of your additional hard work or talent.

My great uneasiness lies in the fact that the feminist movement has trumped everything with their pressure based on political correctness. It isn't so much a debate on equality anymore insofar as it is one of fairness. It just isn't fair that women earn less than men at Wimbledon because they women are equal to men. To suggest otherwise would be to risk severe social censure. I wonder how fair it is that a small group of individuals have decided that they have a monopoly on determining what is fair and what is not.

Sidenote: A similar debate has surfaced in Golf, with the participation of women in PGA tour events. The Royal and Ancient Golf Club recently amended its regulations allowing for women to take part in the Open Championship if they qualified. Why is it only deemed fair if women have the opportunity to take part in the men's tour (and in their majors such as the Masters and the Open) and decidedly unfair if men were to demand the same for women's events? Perhaps it is because it is perceived that men would have an unfair physical advantage over women at Golf? In other words, that they are unequal?