In 1973 tennis hosted two ‘Battle of the Sexes’ – a match between a woman and a man, the first of which was won by the man and the second of which was won by the woman. It has been argued that Billie Jean King only won (the second match) because she was 26 years younger than Bobby Riggs. Since however, the rules of tennis require that participants of this level are aged between 18 and 60, and both were, I would argue that this is not relevant to the discussion. Discounting age as a factor for consideration (where such remains within the accepted sporting regulations) the ‘Battle of the Sexes’ showed that there are situations in which men and women can safely compete together and (more importantly) where the outcome cannot be predicted based purely on the sex of the participant.
At the start of this year the tennis player Serena Williams announced that she had the ambition to become the best player in the world, and not simply the best female player. In order for this title to be adjudged, it would seem logical that Serena would have to beat all comers, and not only female competitors. Yet strangely, this option seems not to be under consideration.
To establish equality within the two sides of tennis (female and male), Serena and many others have spent years fighting for equality in terms of prize money, and this goal has been largely achieved, with the winner of both Women’s and Men’s tennis at Wimbledon (for example) receiving the same purse: although one could argue that the game remains unequal since women play to the best of 3 and men to the best of 5 sets. Yet is the size of the prize money the correct measurement for establishing equality in the sport? If we are truly seeking fairness then why do all of our solutions maintain a segregation between the genders as opposed to eliminating it entirely? The analysis of an individual’s skill level in sport is most often judged in relation to the competition they face – thus if a competitor plays against only men, that competitor can be valued only in terms of the men they faced. For as long as this segregation continues therefore, men and women can never be compared against each other, and thus neither can be considered the greatest tennis player of their generation, only the greatest male or female player. Equality can only come when there is only a single competition.
There are few sports in which women and men do compete in the same competition (without being a couple comprising one of each), and for most of those sports, there is a non-human factor which is considered vital:
- motorsports – the motorised vehicle is the key factor rather than the human who controls
- dressage – the horse is the key factor and its gender is not considered important
- sailing – the sea/ boat is considered the key factor
Why is this? Why do we categorise humans into their sexes for sport (or indeed for anything)? It is perhaps true to say that the physical characteristics of men and women are different to the extent that, (some) men are advantaged in terms of power; but should this matter? Perhaps in other sports women are advantaged in terms of suppleness or speed? Is there an advantage to be gained by either sex in games such as Ping-Pong or Snooker for example? Typically, non-contact sports such as ice-skating evidence no discernable skill gap between men and women; why then are these sports segregated?
There are some sports, where power is a factor in the sport itself (boxing, weight-lifting etc.), and so asking all participants to compete in an unsegregated field may well advantage the men more. However when we look at the sport of boxing, we can see that even within the grouping of the sexes there are substantial differences in the power of the various participants. To equalise this there exist weight classes; Heavyweight, Lightweight, Flyweight etc. These classes are designed to ensure the safety of the participants and also the fairness of the competition. Why then could not a women boxer fight against a male boxer in the same weight category? As we clearly accept the concept that it is legitimate to categorise the participants in terms of weight, why should we preclude that a woman and a man of the same weight be adjudged equal? The categorisation of participants could be extended to all sports where the physical attributes which differ between men and women are key factors: rugby for example could have multiple levels of weight class permitting that both sexes play together. Darts on the other hand, could maintain a single category – there would be no need to segregate since there is no obvious advantage in these sports to either sex.
By removing segregation (by sex) from sports, we will help to establish a truly level playing field both in the consideration for the participants and the sexes. The debate of whether or not the men are paid more than the women would disappear since everyone would compete in the same competition for the same money. Likewise, everyone would play by the same rules and under the same conditions – thus it would be possible to achieve the title of the world’s best tennis player irrespective of whether or not the best is a woman or a man.
(with thanks to Danny Temple)
Much of what you say is true, however it is equally true that while a good little one might possibly beat a good big one of whichever gender, there is a limit to the smaller individuals advantage in terms of nippiness, suppleness etc.
Thus in virtually every sport including non-contact sports like running, basketball etc. and the allegedly minimal contact sports like football, bigger players will have much of the advantage when contact does occur or when brute force is needed (permitted or not).
Might the matching tennis prize money be based on more on entertainment value rather than competitive advantage?
Hi Rupert, long time reader, first time poster.
Here are some facts for you, courtesy of Google:
1. The average man is taller and heavier than the average woman.
2. Women are more sensitive to sound than men.
3. Men are over 30% stronger than women, especially in the upper body.
4. Men have larger hearts and lungs, and their higher levels of testosterone cause them to produce greater amounts of red blood cells.
5. Differences in intake and delivery of oxygen translate into some aspects of performance: when a man is jogging at about 50% of his capacity, a woman will need to work at over 70% of her capacity to keep up with him.
6. Women generally have a greater body fat percentage than men.
7. Men and women have different levels of certain hormones; for example, men have a higher concentration of androgens such as testosterone, while women have a higher concentration of estrogens.
8. Men have better distance vision and depth perception, and usually better vision in lighted environments. Women have better night vision, see better at the red end of the light spectrum, and a have better visual memory.
Biology is the only place where gender activists will admit that human beings are a dimorphic species. It is readily apparent that men are typically taller than women, men are typically stronger than women, women are typically more agile than men, and so forth.
Feminists and so-called “social scientists” have this faulty notion that the same brain which is responsible for the extreme dimorphism in physiology – despite the fact that we all begin life as proto-females – plays absolutely no role in gendered personality traits. Despite the fact that countless studies have found gender traits to be universally consistent – unaffected by culture, society, geography, and even time – and that key identifiers such as hormone levels predict a person’s interests and psyche with exceeding accuracy, these people still profess gender to be nothing more than a sociological construct.
I’ll give you an example to illustrate why men and women can’t compete in sports, that relates directly to your blog:
In 1998, the Williams sisters challenged any man outside the top 200 to compete against them.
Karsten Braasch accepted the challenge. He was ranked 203 at the time . He beat Serena 6-1 and Venus 6-2.
There are distinct statistical differences between the sexes of humans that result in the best men outperforming the best women in most, if not all physical sports. If the sexes compete against each other as individuals within a large group, seldom will a woman turn out to be a winner. This seems to be a truism.
If gender equality is to produce a world where women can aspire to the same sorts of achievements as men, then a separate space for womens’ sports seems appropriate.
You seem to be confusing gender equality with gender erasure. Women are generally physically smaller and weaker than men. Unless you get a kick out of watching men repeatedly drive women into the ground, there’s not much point in throwing them into the same box.
For the same reason that guys who weigh 60 kgs typically don’t compete against guys who weigh 100 kgs in wrestling. In order for a competition to be fair (not to mention interesting) you want the competitors to be closely matched in the physical attributes that influence who is going to win in that sport. There are physical differences in the biology of men and women that cannot be seen to be fair. Women’s muscles are built differently, designed by evolution that way. A physically powerful man’s arm will tire quickly holding his baby, while a woman can happily do it for much longer, yet that same woman cannot lift a heavy bag of shopping that the man would find easy. Men’s muscles are designed for explosive bursts as opposed to a woman’s which are designed for lower output over a longer period.
Even the perennial argument you mention about darts holds little merit, there are numerous experiments that have taken place that prove that a man’s hand eye coordination is significantly superior to a woman’s. Again, this is Darwinism; evolution and years of hunter/gathering that has made us this way, the best male darts players in the world regularly average 110 with 3 darts, if you’d ever watched the women’s world darts championships you’d see that their best players average around 20 points less. The reason they are still held as separate championships, despite many cries of inequality, is that when they have matched up the gulf has been noticeable.
I am not for one second trying to diminish any achievement, sporting or otherwise, that any female has accomplished, I am merely pointing out there are biological advantages that men have in the field of athletics that make any true match up between the sexes entirely unfair.
Thank you for your comment, the points you raise are very interesting and yet I am not sure that we are arguing the same point. Whether or not it is scientifically correct to say that (generally) men and women are different is not in dispute; since it is probably equally true to say that you and I are different… this being true, why then should two different people of the same gender be allowed to compete together and yet not two people of different gender? It is entirely possible that I am greatly disadvantaged by my lower hormone levels, worse hand-eye coordination and slower reaction times. Should then I have a different category of competition because I am less able than you?
I do not wish to reduce the argument to what could be considered absurdities however. My point was more that by maintaining segregation such as this, by categorising people by gender in no matter what area, we allow prejudice to present itself. As highlighted in an earlier article (see There will Never be Equality without Equality of Language) concerning the terms used to label sports, we readily discuss football and women’s football, we never discuss men’s football.
Perhaps competition by weight is not the answer, but I do feel that continuing the separation by gender cannot help any consideration of equality.
Well, Rupert m’boy, I’d say we ARE arguing the same point, it’s just that you’re losing said argument…… but I do enjoy the back-and-forth.
My point remains the same, men have a genetic physical advantage over women, meaning no athletic competition between the two can be deemed fair, however much you want it to be.
It is the entire reason men and women do not compete against each other already, because if anything all it would do is reinforce the stereotypes that men are ‘better’ than women, and I assume that’s entirely the point you DON’T want to make.
Oh, and yes, in answer to your question, if you are not as good at sport as the next person, you absolutely would have a different category of competition. You know, EXACTLY AS ALREADY EXISTS; if you are an ok cricket player you’ll play in a Sunday league, if you’re a bit better you might make it to County level, if you’re better than that then National league, and so on and so forth.
Good talking to you though, look forward to your next blog.
I am not in fact trying to maintain that there is no difference between men and women, the point that I am trying to make is that the arbitrary grouping of competitors by their gender is prejudicial and unfair. It is my belief that if there should be any segregation of competitors, then it should be on specific criteria relevant to and set for the specific sport in question. If for example in tennis, muscle mass and hand-eye co-ordination are considered key factors, then the competitors can be grouped according to that, not according to the fact that they happen to be of a certain gender. Arbitrary categorisation can lead to unfairness and prejudice. Why should a woman who has the same muscle mass and hand-eye co-ordination to that of one of her male competitors not compete with him – rather than against another woman who may have less?
I am not against categorisation – I am against the unfair categorisation of people against criteria which are not relevant to the purpose. Using your example of cricket – there are indeed many leagues in which one can compete – but why are they separated by gender ONLY and not ONLY ability?
Nice response, I love it. You’re like a dog with a bone, it’s kind of adorable.
In answer to your question ‘why are they separated by gender and not ONLY ability?’, it comes back to the fact that the two genders are not and never can be physiologically equal. You mention muscle mass and coordination, but what about the fact that the very type of muscle is different? That men and women’s bodies require differing amounts of oxygen to produce the same level of result? That their bodies take in, store and absorb that oxygen at different levels, and release energy in different ways?
They are separated by gender because it is absolutely the fairest way to differentiate.
Do you not think, with the way the world is regarding women’s rights and equality nowadays, that better people than you or I have had many discussions on this very subject? And yet they have not deemed it appropriate or fair to change the system?
You strike me as an idealist, someone who would like things to be a certain way because of a sense of morality or justice. That’s great, more power to you, however in practice even the best ideals are not always viable options and this I think is one of those situations.
I do look forward to your next blog though, when is that happening? I’ll clear my calendar for our next debate!
Women’s chess, maybe?
May-be a woman Prime minister too, it seems the two female leaders we have had so far are always right and have little time or patience for discussion or democracy. Coincidence?
A bit like our mothers’ view on so many subjects, now eat up all your cabbage or no ice cream!