Exactly. Women are not as fun to watch so it's okay that they are not given their fair share of attention in the media and it's ok that they work equally as hard as men but don't get paid nearly as much. It's an unfortunate truth that we both accept and continue to justify and even minimize the impact of. We have women who will never reach their full potential as athletes, stereotypes that may never go away, and that's ok.
Hannah Kearney may in fact be the most decorated world Cup skier, but her focus has entirely been on her sport, she will never receive the admiration that Lindsey Vonn has. Anything that has somewhat of an appearance of attack on Lindsey will conjure up emotion, yet No one has any inkling of a remark on Silvana Lima's story. Whether right or wrong or even within our power to change gender inequality exists in sport. No matter what the reason or justification. That is what I have learned from Lindsey Vonn's butt.
First, I was talking mostly about the money I spend to attend events, not so much TV. I understand that advertising revenue is a thing, but trust me, I watch it all except MMA, pretty much, from high school girls soccer games on the local cable channel all the way to Formula 1 races involving multi-million-dollar vehicles.
A few things:
1. Does Hannah Kearney even care? (I don't know that answer to that)
2. Who judges what a "fair share" of media attention is?
3. Athletes are not paid on the basis of how hard they work. (If they were, Nordic skiers would be billionaires, right?)
4. Gate revenues are important.
5. Yes,
absolutely many recreational athletes prefer watching women in their sport because it relates more to their own abilities. ie, NBA is now played above the rim, WNBA isn't. Of course, this also bolsters the argument that the quality of men's sport is above the quality of women's sport, when you get down to it, and most (not all) people who are spending their own money actually want to see the highest quality. And yes, I think that is ok.
I totally support equal pay for women in many situations, even when they are not generating equal revenue. At tennis majors, and other tournaments where men and women share the venue, I think it's a no-brainer. Same for other equivalents: I think the USWNT has a good point in soccer, but as the NYT article shows, it's a lot more complicated than it appears at first, because things just aren't exactly alike. But I believe the "good" in these situations outweighs the "fair." Winners of the women's FIS downhill crystal globe should be paid the same as winners of the men's. (I think this prize money IS the same, but not certain.)
I think in events where the men and women are
not competing in the same place at the same time under the same umbrella, it's difficult to argue that women should be paid the same as men
unless they are bringing in the same revenue.
I also think that Title 9 needs to be amended to somehow take NCAA football out of the equation. It's completely unfair to many male athletes that their programs are cut simply because women don't have a sport equivalent to football in the amount of money required to compete. For example CSU in Ft Collins has only 5 men's sports to 9 women's sports.
