Richard Keys and Andy Gray should be asked to leave their jobs as commentators on Sky Football with immediate effect. There is just no two ways about it. This might seem strong words, but given their blatant and inexcusably sexist comments caught off air about an assistant referee, I see no other recourse.
For those of you who haven't heard, Keys and Gray suggested that someone needed to explain the offside rule to female assistant referee Sian Massey after a controversial decision (which ironically she actually got spot on and they got wrong), saying the league had "f**ked up big time" in appointing female officials, and castigated a previous female referee's assistant as "f**king hopeless".
The response? Sky called their comments completely unacceptable and stated that the pair had been suspended from broadcasting the Monday night match between Chelsea and Bolton. I find this woefully inadequate. By way of comparison, let's examine instances where broadcasters have made blatantly racist comments (both on and off the air) and the consequences they suffered.
One famous incident involved Ron Atkinson, who was commenting for ITV on a Champions League semi-final match between Monaco and Chelsea when he stated that Marcel Desailly was "stated in some schools as a f**king lazy thick nigger". He had thought he was off the air, but the remarks were broadcast. He immediately resigned.
In another non-footballing incident, a New Zealand TV anchor Paul Henry deliberately mispronounced Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit's name as "dick shit" and "dip shit" adding that it was somehow additionally appropiate "because she is Indian, [so] she would be walking down the street dick in shit wouldn't she, you know what I mean?". He resigned shortly afterwards.
The footballing community has sent out a very strong message that racism will not be tolerated in the sport, in any shape or form. This has gone a long way to address the blatant and horrific racism that pervaded the game. In the past, fans found it not merely acceptable but fun to make monkey noises whenever an opposing black player touched the ball. Bananas were even thrown onto the pitch.
Racism has not been completely eradicated. The treatment Marco Balotelli has received from opposing fans in Italy is just one case in point, more so our own intrinsic tendency to still stereotype players based on race (black players are big, physical; white players are smart and cultured footballers). However, a clear message has been sent that any blatant racism will not be tolerated. When Atkinson made those comments, he knew immediately that he had no recourse but to resign.
Keys and Gray are not about to resign. The fact that do not feel the need to is telling. Sexism is as ingrained in football as racism was in the past. Football is a lads game after all, a Saturday afternoon pastime at the pub with your mates. We've all made similarly sexist jokes about the game. How many of us have casually joked about our girlfriends never being able to understand the offside rule? Women also do the same and laugh about the fact that only men would take pleasure and interest in watching 22 other men run around a field for 90 minutes.
What is not tolerable is when gender becomes grounds for baseless facile personal attacks as was the case with Keys and Gray. What is most shocking, as a colleague and friend put it, is their casual banter suggested that they thought every other footballing bloke would feel the same way, though they might not express it as openly (and as unwisely) as the two of them did. The notion of female assistants, let alone referees? Woman having a serious part in top flight football? Ludicrous!
Really? There are female referees in many other top flight leagues such as the Bundesliga, which can lead to the occasional awkward moment as Peter Niemeyer of Hertha Berlin found out recently. Women have run the lines in the last two Champions League. Women are refeering at the Rugby World Sevens, even at the Snooker World Championships (arguably a sport which is even more of a male preserve).
Football is lagging behind. What needs to be done is to send out as clear and unequivocal a message condemning sexism as the sport did in taking a zero tolerance policy towards racism. That is the only way we can eradicate it from the game.
Let there be no gray (pardon the pun) area about how football deals with blatant sexism. It is completely and utterly unacceptable. Anyone guilty of it should have no place in the game, in any capacity. Keys and Gray have to go.
Showing posts with label Commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Commentary. Show all posts
25 January 2011
29 January 2009
A Sobering Though in These Troubled Economic Times
Many countries worldwide are facing their worst recession in many decades. World economic growth has been estimated by the IMF for 2009 to be only 0.5%, the lowest in half a century. Amidst continued fears of job losses, home foreclosures, fall in stock prices and failing banks, there is the added concern of the social and political consequences that the economic downturn might bring.
Unemployment is certainly a major social evil that will result. Surveys have shown that losing your job is doubly painful - there is the unhappiness caused by poverty as a result of the loss of income but also unhappiness as a result of social shame and loss of self-respect due to the loss of a job. The news is getting more dire by the week, with Starbucks now closely hundreds of outlets, manufacturing and steel jobs declining to add to the job losses in the financial sector.
The most sobering thought of all? In the 1928 German elections, the National Socialists polled less than 3% of the votes. In 1933, Adolf Hitler succeed in winning the Chancellorship. What happened in the interim? The great depression and a major worldwide recession. The example above was of course over-stated and I doubt that anything quite so drastic will result from the current economic downturn (which is expected to last for at least the next two years). Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind the possible severe political consequences of economic collapse. That might be the most sobering thought of all.
Unemployment is certainly a major social evil that will result. Surveys have shown that losing your job is doubly painful - there is the unhappiness caused by poverty as a result of the loss of income but also unhappiness as a result of social shame and loss of self-respect due to the loss of a job. The news is getting more dire by the week, with Starbucks now closely hundreds of outlets, manufacturing and steel jobs declining to add to the job losses in the financial sector.
The most sobering thought of all? In the 1928 German elections, the National Socialists polled less than 3% of the votes. In 1933, Adolf Hitler succeed in winning the Chancellorship. What happened in the interim? The great depression and a major worldwide recession. The example above was of course over-stated and I doubt that anything quite so drastic will result from the current economic downturn (which is expected to last for at least the next two years). Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind the possible severe political consequences of economic collapse. That might be the most sobering thought of all.
2 September 2008
Palin and Pregnancy
As if her announcement as the VP candidate wasn't cause for enough surprise. It has just been revealed that Sarah Palin's 17 year-old daughter, Bristol, is five months pregnant. Bristol has decided to keep the baby and will soon be marrying the father. Both the McCain and Obama camps have rightly pointed out that this is a private matter that should be left to the discretion of the Palin family.
It is unlikely that Palin's appeal to the social conservatives will be damaged by news of the pregnancy given the decision of her daughter not only to keep the baby but to marry the father.
What Bristol Palin's pregnancy is bound to do is highlight once again the enormously high teenage pregnancy rate in the United States. What it should do is raise questions about the role that social conservatives (and the policies they advocate) have to play in creating this situation.
America has a startlingly high rate of teenage pregnancies. According to statistics cited by the BBC, around 750,000 teenage American girls get pregnant every year. The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that keeps tabs on such statistics has revealed that about one third of American girls get pregnant before the age of 20. Of these pregnancies, 80% are 'undesired' or 'occurring sooner than desired'. These are shocking statistics to say the least.
One reason that has been cited for the high teenage pregnancy rate is the social conservatives insistence on advocating abstinence only sex education, a policy supported by current President George W. Bush. Critics suggest that the statistics have shown that teaching abstinence is not only ineffective but socially irresponsible. The evidence suggests that a huge majority (around 90% or greater) of teenagers break abstinence only pledges, and worse of all, those who make such pledges are much less likely to use any form of birth control or protection when they do end up having sex.
Sarah Palin herself is a strong proponent of abstinence only sex education. In fact, she pledged during her campaign for governor that she would categorically refuse any funding for sex education programs in Alaska. To her, teenagers should be encouraged not to have sex, not how to protect themselves when and if they do. This is highly unfortunate given that Alaska has one of the highest teenage STD transmission rates in the whole of the United States. It does seem perverse that Governor Palin would withhold funding for a policy designed to give teenagers information that might help them to protect themselves from infectious diseases (besides unwanted pregnancy).
Bristol Palin's pregnancy is certainly not unique among American teenagers her age. Republicans are trying to present this as yet another instance where Palin has shown herself to fit the typical soccer mom image she identified herself with when accepting the nomination. That this pregnancy is so commonplace as to resonance with the average everyday American must be cause to cast light on Sarah Palin's policies on sex education.
Bristol is 17 years old, and she will soon find herself a mother, a role many would agree no 17 year old is really ready to face. The fact is that American teenage girls are sexually active, many at a relatively young age. It will be delusional, and more than that, irresponsible, for Sarah Palin to pretend otherwise.
Addendum: Nobody is questioning that the Palins gave Bristol all the support she needed when she found out she was pregnant. Still, feminists will be outraged at what to them is a shotgun marriage forced upon an unwitting 17-year old on the basis of throwback pre-women's liberation good as apple pie family values. There is of course also the possible influence that Sarah Palin, with her strongly avowed pro-life stance, had on her daughter with regards to keeping the pregnancy itself. Some commentators were highly bemused by the suggestion that Palin, a pro-life conservative, could win over Hilary Clinton supporters. There was little doubt she would really resonate with female voters. It was just a question whether the voters would delve deep enough to realize just how conservative she is. The pregnancy is bound to put that in the spotlight.
It is unlikely that Palin's appeal to the social conservatives will be damaged by news of the pregnancy given the decision of her daughter not only to keep the baby but to marry the father.
What Bristol Palin's pregnancy is bound to do is highlight once again the enormously high teenage pregnancy rate in the United States. What it should do is raise questions about the role that social conservatives (and the policies they advocate) have to play in creating this situation.
America has a startlingly high rate of teenage pregnancies. According to statistics cited by the BBC, around 750,000 teenage American girls get pregnant every year. The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that keeps tabs on such statistics has revealed that about one third of American girls get pregnant before the age of 20. Of these pregnancies, 80% are 'undesired' or 'occurring sooner than desired'. These are shocking statistics to say the least.
One reason that has been cited for the high teenage pregnancy rate is the social conservatives insistence on advocating abstinence only sex education, a policy supported by current President George W. Bush. Critics suggest that the statistics have shown that teaching abstinence is not only ineffective but socially irresponsible. The evidence suggests that a huge majority (around 90% or greater) of teenagers break abstinence only pledges, and worse of all, those who make such pledges are much less likely to use any form of birth control or protection when they do end up having sex.
Sarah Palin herself is a strong proponent of abstinence only sex education. In fact, she pledged during her campaign for governor that she would categorically refuse any funding for sex education programs in Alaska. To her, teenagers should be encouraged not to have sex, not how to protect themselves when and if they do. This is highly unfortunate given that Alaska has one of the highest teenage STD transmission rates in the whole of the United States. It does seem perverse that Governor Palin would withhold funding for a policy designed to give teenagers information that might help them to protect themselves from infectious diseases (besides unwanted pregnancy).
Bristol Palin's pregnancy is certainly not unique among American teenagers her age. Republicans are trying to present this as yet another instance where Palin has shown herself to fit the typical soccer mom image she identified herself with when accepting the nomination. That this pregnancy is so commonplace as to resonance with the average everyday American must be cause to cast light on Sarah Palin's policies on sex education.
Bristol is 17 years old, and she will soon find herself a mother, a role many would agree no 17 year old is really ready to face. The fact is that American teenage girls are sexually active, many at a relatively young age. It will be delusional, and more than that, irresponsible, for Sarah Palin to pretend otherwise.
Addendum: Nobody is questioning that the Palins gave Bristol all the support she needed when she found out she was pregnant. Still, feminists will be outraged at what to them is a shotgun marriage forced upon an unwitting 17-year old on the basis of throwback pre-women's liberation good as apple pie family values. There is of course also the possible influence that Sarah Palin, with her strongly avowed pro-life stance, had on her daughter with regards to keeping the pregnancy itself. Some commentators were highly bemused by the suggestion that Palin, a pro-life conservative, could win over Hilary Clinton supporters. There was little doubt she would really resonate with female voters. It was just a question whether the voters would delve deep enough to realize just how conservative she is. The pregnancy is bound to put that in the spotlight.
5 June 2008
My Take on DPM Wong
Following the farcical escape of Mas Selamat bin Kastari from the Whitley Road detention center over four months ago, there have been repeated calls for the government officials responsible for the lapse in security to be held to account. After a lengthy investigation, punishments have been meted out to the officials running the detention center, the guards who were responsible for securing Mas Selamat and the Ministry officials supervising the detention center itself. However, it is notable that senior officials in the Ministry, up to and including Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Wong Kan Seng himself, escaped unscathed.
The DPM has been quick to reject any calls for his resignation, stating that it was counterproductive to point the finger of blame, and arguing, somewhat disingenuously, that because those individuals who bore direct responsibility for the Mas Selamat escape were so many layers removed from him in the bureaucratic hierarchy, there is no way he could be held accountable for their actions. In a well-thought out Straits Times piece on the issue of ministerial responsibility, the writer pointed it out it was a rare rather occurrence, even in Britain, for politicians to resign due to a lapse or oversight (resignations due to a matter of principle is another thing altogether). Yet, at the same time, it is difficult to run away from the fact, personified by former US President Harry S. Truman, who had an ornament on his desk bearing the inscription 'the buck stops here', that as the ultimate decision maker, the Minister in charge must be responsible in a sense. The question is to what degree?
I had a conversation with a friend who defended DPM Wong, and suggested that it would be counter-productive for him to resign. On that front, I am in general agreement. One only need recall Japanese officers ordering their men to shoot themselves, or blow themselves up with grenades (so tragically portrayed in Letters from Iwo Jima) to underline the wastefulness, the futility and in some situations utter stupidity of throwing yourself on your own proverbial sword due to the loss of honour brought about by failure. Yet, at the same time, we do admire individuals, who when faced with a extremely severe situation of their own making, acknowledge their culpability and their mistakes, and take responsibility for it.
The analogy I wish to bring to bear on this situation is that of a corporate CEO. This is particularly apt given that our Ministers earn massive salaries which are specifically linked to what top tier executives from the private sector are making. If a large corporation, such as a bank, suffers a massive loss or general poor performance for a period of time, the CEO will have to resign. The recent sub-prime mortgage crisis is a case in point. In many ways, it was a one-off, and in a sense it was an unpredictable occurrence. Surely a CEO could not have anticipated it, and should not be held directly responsible for the losses? Shareholders beg to differ - as evidenced by the resignation of a number of CEOs from some of the top banks that have suffered big losses in the crisis.
So, we come back to DPM Wong. Yes, the Mas Selamat escape was an unpredictable one-off occurrence, and of course he could not have direct control over the detention center, the staff, and the specific circumstances in which the escape took place. But so it is with corporate CEOs during the sub-prime crisis with their own staff. The rule in the cut throat world of business is simple - you captain the ship, you bear the consequences. In adopting the corporate model for salaries to our top ministers, we cannot just offer the high rewards inherent in a demanding job with a high degree of responsibility - we must also adopt the high risks inherent in such a position in the event of failure, as the two are inextricably interlinked.
The conclusion for me is inescapable. If DPM Wong had been a corporate CEO, and the equivalent of a corporate Mas Selamat had occurred, I have little doubt that he would have had to resign. Given that, it is hard to argue against the fact that the buck has to stop firmly at his feet.
The DPM has been quick to reject any calls for his resignation, stating that it was counterproductive to point the finger of blame, and arguing, somewhat disingenuously, that because those individuals who bore direct responsibility for the Mas Selamat escape were so many layers removed from him in the bureaucratic hierarchy, there is no way he could be held accountable for their actions. In a well-thought out Straits Times piece on the issue of ministerial responsibility, the writer pointed it out it was a rare rather occurrence, even in Britain, for politicians to resign due to a lapse or oversight (resignations due to a matter of principle is another thing altogether). Yet, at the same time, it is difficult to run away from the fact, personified by former US President Harry S. Truman, who had an ornament on his desk bearing the inscription 'the buck stops here', that as the ultimate decision maker, the Minister in charge must be responsible in a sense. The question is to what degree?
I had a conversation with a friend who defended DPM Wong, and suggested that it would be counter-productive for him to resign. On that front, I am in general agreement. One only need recall Japanese officers ordering their men to shoot themselves, or blow themselves up with grenades (so tragically portrayed in Letters from Iwo Jima) to underline the wastefulness, the futility and in some situations utter stupidity of throwing yourself on your own proverbial sword due to the loss of honour brought about by failure. Yet, at the same time, we do admire individuals, who when faced with a extremely severe situation of their own making, acknowledge their culpability and their mistakes, and take responsibility for it.
The analogy I wish to bring to bear on this situation is that of a corporate CEO. This is particularly apt given that our Ministers earn massive salaries which are specifically linked to what top tier executives from the private sector are making. If a large corporation, such as a bank, suffers a massive loss or general poor performance for a period of time, the CEO will have to resign. The recent sub-prime mortgage crisis is a case in point. In many ways, it was a one-off, and in a sense it was an unpredictable occurrence. Surely a CEO could not have anticipated it, and should not be held directly responsible for the losses? Shareholders beg to differ - as evidenced by the resignation of a number of CEOs from some of the top banks that have suffered big losses in the crisis.
So, we come back to DPM Wong. Yes, the Mas Selamat escape was an unpredictable one-off occurrence, and of course he could not have direct control over the detention center, the staff, and the specific circumstances in which the escape took place. But so it is with corporate CEOs during the sub-prime crisis with their own staff. The rule in the cut throat world of business is simple - you captain the ship, you bear the consequences. In adopting the corporate model for salaries to our top ministers, we cannot just offer the high rewards inherent in a demanding job with a high degree of responsibility - we must also adopt the high risks inherent in such a position in the event of failure, as the two are inextricably interlinked.
The conclusion for me is inescapable. If DPM Wong had been a corporate CEO, and the equivalent of a corporate Mas Selamat had occurred, I have little doubt that he would have had to resign. Given that, it is hard to argue against the fact that the buck has to stop firmly at his feet.
18 January 2008
Transportation Rant; Dinner at Au Petit Salut
It was Qiuyi's birthday and I was invited to dinner at Au Petit Salut at Dempsey's. Maxie, Preema, Alvin and Koh Ping were the others that attended. I hadn't seen them for the most part since I left MFA so it was good to catch up. Unfortunately for me, I was very late after getting delayed leaving the house, and then being unable to board over three buses from Orchard MRT towards Holland on account of them being completely jam-packed.
Ironically, our Transport Minister gave a keynote speech the following day outlining our future transport strategy with public transport as the centerpiece - apparently he wants to make taking public transport as convenient or more so as driving a car. Try packing yourself into a jam packed bus only to connect to a jam packed MRT train and see how comfortable (let alone convenient) that is!
In addition, Orchard MRT now suffers from a major human traffic flow problem due to the moving of the main exit from the MRT station to Orchard Road. The old main exit next to Wisma is now closed, and instead commuters have to exit through what will be the future Ion at Orchard residence/shops. The only problem is, the passageway to the new exit is very narrow and off to the side of the ticket booth, and it crosses with the path into the underground tunnel towards Tangs/Shaw. The net result is a huge jam of bodies.
Suffice the say that the planning regarding the human traffic flow has been non-existent and the situation is most unwelcome. Almost as unwelcome as the horrendous advertising on the Ion bombarding us on on the way up to Orchard Road. This is corporate branding and advertising at its most odious.
Over dinner, the conversation centered quite naturally on work, with the usual complaints about the long hours, the secretarial nature of the job and limited opportunities for research and so on. I guess discussing what is going on at the place makes me regret leaving a lot less - I doubt that I would have wanted to stay there for the long term given the status quo, and I highly doubt things will change in any fundamental way. It still pains me to hear of old friends and colleagues going home at midnight for a week or more on end, though.
Au Petit Salut itself was a nice enough place. I had seen it on numerous times passing by on Holland Road, standing alone and aloof from the dining and nightlife boom on Dempsey Road. The building alone was a bit of an oddity, a small three storey slightly run down looking thing. It was certainly interesting walking up the pathway from the bus stop and finding it blocked with leaves and ending up right by the windows to the kitchen.
Overall it was a nice enough dining experience. The service was good, the restaurant interior itself what one would expect from a fairly high class French place. I ordered a steak (felt like some meat) and it was done a nice medium rare - just as I had ordered. I passed on desert, but what the others ordered looked quite delectable. As far as French restaurants in Singapore goes, Au Petit Salut is definitely a better bet than say Sebastian's at Greenwood Ave or some of the other establishments I have tried.
Ironically, our Transport Minister gave a keynote speech the following day outlining our future transport strategy with public transport as the centerpiece - apparently he wants to make taking public transport as convenient or more so as driving a car. Try packing yourself into a jam packed bus only to connect to a jam packed MRT train and see how comfortable (let alone convenient) that is!
In addition, Orchard MRT now suffers from a major human traffic flow problem due to the moving of the main exit from the MRT station to Orchard Road. The old main exit next to Wisma is now closed, and instead commuters have to exit through what will be the future Ion at Orchard residence/shops. The only problem is, the passageway to the new exit is very narrow and off to the side of the ticket booth, and it crosses with the path into the underground tunnel towards Tangs/Shaw. The net result is a huge jam of bodies.
Suffice the say that the planning regarding the human traffic flow has been non-existent and the situation is most unwelcome. Almost as unwelcome as the horrendous advertising on the Ion bombarding us on on the way up to Orchard Road. This is corporate branding and advertising at its most odious.
Over dinner, the conversation centered quite naturally on work, with the usual complaints about the long hours, the secretarial nature of the job and limited opportunities for research and so on. I guess discussing what is going on at the place makes me regret leaving a lot less - I doubt that I would have wanted to stay there for the long term given the status quo, and I highly doubt things will change in any fundamental way. It still pains me to hear of old friends and colleagues going home at midnight for a week or more on end, though.
Au Petit Salut itself was a nice enough place. I had seen it on numerous times passing by on Holland Road, standing alone and aloof from the dining and nightlife boom on Dempsey Road. The building alone was a bit of an oddity, a small three storey slightly run down looking thing. It was certainly interesting walking up the pathway from the bus stop and finding it blocked with leaves and ending up right by the windows to the kitchen.
Overall it was a nice enough dining experience. The service was good, the restaurant interior itself what one would expect from a fairly high class French place. I ordered a steak (felt like some meat) and it was done a nice medium rare - just as I had ordered. I passed on desert, but what the others ordered looked quite delectable. As far as French restaurants in Singapore goes, Au Petit Salut is definitely a better bet than say Sebastian's at Greenwood Ave or some of the other establishments I have tried.
4 July 2007
The Ladies Night Debate
There has been considerable debate over a recent incident at a local nightclub, The Powerhouse, which was reported in the press. A lady in her 50s was denied the usual 5 free drinks upon entry for Ladies Night at the club and was instead given spa vouchers. She was informed that it was club policy to only issue free drinks to women who were 35 or younger. This soon led to widespread condemnation of this policy as being ageist and discriminatory. Many were further insulted when the club chose to enforce the policy by checking identity cards upon entry.
When asked to explain its policy, Powerhouse, part of the St James group of clubs stated that there were "specific business reasons behind the policy". According to their Chief Operating Officer, "the allure of Ladies' Night for men is that they want to see young, pretty women. We are responding to their expectations." The club also noted that it had the right to set the rules and regulations governing promotions.
While I understand the antagonism surrounding this policy, I must grudgingly support the club in this instance. They are absolutely correct in saying that they have the right to set any specific rules and regulations governing promotional privileges and entry provided that they are clearly stated. This would include a policy of only giving free drinks to ladies under the age of 35, even if we find the objective - that of attracting younger and prettier clientele which would in turn attract more high spending male clientele - worthy of criticism.
The simple fact is that ladies night privileges are specially given by the club, at their own expense. They thus have the right to decide who they want to award these privileges to. I find my sympathy waning for the women who gripe at no receiving the additional drinks free, considering that lady's night is in itself a form of thinly disguised discrimination. Why do the men not complain about the fact that they are being discriminated against on the basis of sex seeing that women are so blatantly having their cover charge waived?
It would have been quite a different story if the club, instead of barring these older women from the free drinks (and to be fair they did receive a substitute free gift), had barred them from entering the club altogether on the grounds that they are too old. That would certainly raise a hue and cry, and deservedly so in my opinion.
This brings me to the crux of this post, for such blatant discrimination on the grounds of age in terms of barring individuals from entering a club already exists. Almost every club in Singapore set different minimum ages limits for entry for males and females. Many, such as St James set a minimum age limit for men at 23 or even 25. They have no grounds for this blatant discrimination other than stating this is "club policy". Basically, clubs can let in anybody they want as long as they are above the legal drinking age of 18 years old.
Given what I just said, isn't it a bit ridiculous that there has been such a hullabaloo about discrimination, ageism, unfairness etc. in the case of these women not being given 5 free promotional drinks given that they still had the right to enter the premises and had their cover waived to boot? Let us put things into perspective. If you really want proof of ageism and discrimination, just look towards all those young men, serving their country as full time national servicemen, barred from having a night on the town for the simple reason they are deemed too young in the eyes of the club.
When asked to explain its policy, Powerhouse, part of the St James group of clubs stated that there were "specific business reasons behind the policy". According to their Chief Operating Officer, "the allure of Ladies' Night for men is that they want to see young, pretty women. We are responding to their expectations." The club also noted that it had the right to set the rules and regulations governing promotions.
While I understand the antagonism surrounding this policy, I must grudgingly support the club in this instance. They are absolutely correct in saying that they have the right to set any specific rules and regulations governing promotional privileges and entry provided that they are clearly stated. This would include a policy of only giving free drinks to ladies under the age of 35, even if we find the objective - that of attracting younger and prettier clientele which would in turn attract more high spending male clientele - worthy of criticism.
The simple fact is that ladies night privileges are specially given by the club, at their own expense. They thus have the right to decide who they want to award these privileges to. I find my sympathy waning for the women who gripe at no receiving the additional drinks free, considering that lady's night is in itself a form of thinly disguised discrimination. Why do the men not complain about the fact that they are being discriminated against on the basis of sex seeing that women are so blatantly having their cover charge waived?
It would have been quite a different story if the club, instead of barring these older women from the free drinks (and to be fair they did receive a substitute free gift), had barred them from entering the club altogether on the grounds that they are too old. That would certainly raise a hue and cry, and deservedly so in my opinion.
This brings me to the crux of this post, for such blatant discrimination on the grounds of age in terms of barring individuals from entering a club already exists. Almost every club in Singapore set different minimum ages limits for entry for males and females. Many, such as St James set a minimum age limit for men at 23 or even 25. They have no grounds for this blatant discrimination other than stating this is "club policy". Basically, clubs can let in anybody they want as long as they are above the legal drinking age of 18 years old.
Given what I just said, isn't it a bit ridiculous that there has been such a hullabaloo about discrimination, ageism, unfairness etc. in the case of these women not being given 5 free promotional drinks given that they still had the right to enter the premises and had their cover waived to boot? Let us put things into perspective. If you really want proof of ageism and discrimination, just look towards all those young men, serving their country as full time national servicemen, barred from having a night on the town for the simple reason they are deemed too young in the eyes of the club.
25 June 2007
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
