The Heraean Games

This post is very much out of my comfort zone. I have never ventured into the area of Greek History. In fact this is the first time I have done any research into it or honestly learnt anything about it. I gave up History at the first opportunity (aged 14) and we hadn't ever been taught anything from the Ancient Greek times. However one of my lovely friends, @AlexPolisTigers thought it might be great idea for Women's History Month. So here we are!

The first thing that struck me was how little information there was out there about the Heraean Games (or Games of Hera). I know we are talking millenia ago now but the information available about the male equivalent is in far greater quantities and better quality. As a result there is a lot of conjecture around the Heraean Games. It is a fantastic demonstration of the erasure of Women's History. Despite the fact that they ran for centuries alongside the male equivalent they are considerably less well known. Most of the limited information seems to have been taken from Pausanias and his Description of Greece and then extrapolated from there.

The Games appear to have been established by Hippodamia sometime during the Archaic Period (800C - 500C BC). She wanted to offer her gratitude to Hera for her marriage to Pelops. It seems odd to create a predominantly female space in thanks for being given to a man. Maybe she felt the need for more women-centric activities after joining her life with a man! Hera, however was a strong, independent and dignified woman so was a great taliswoman for the games despite what the linked Wikipedia article says. History has consigned her to being the petulant, jealous wife of Zeus. How the narrative is rewritten according to who writes it! In this case it was the patriarchal Christians who assigned Goddesses as lesser than the Gods and introduced a patriarchal view of the women in Ancient Greek times. In the same vein much of the information about Hippodamia is only available in relation to her husband or father, despite the fact she was obviously a capable woman in her own right. This is not to say that Ancient Greece was a bastion of feminism. In all likelihood it wasn't a great period for women and a patriarchy is very much in evidence. But subsequently misrepresenting women only makes matters worse.

Hippodamia assembled the Sixteen Women and together they founded the Heraea. The Sixteen Women are thought to have been peace-makers between Elis and Pisa and are likely to have been married women. There are several interpretations as to how these women were brought together and where they were from. Some think that the group was made up of women from sixteen cities from Elis and Pisa, others that they were all from Elis. They did succeed in peace between the two regions, after which they were given the task of building the Heraean Games and weaving a spiritual robe for Hera. It is possible that these games may have even pre-dated the men as some think that the male Olympiad were established in honour of Pelops' death.The Games were held in the Olympic Stadium that the men used and were held between 3-5 years apart. The time between events seemed to vary throughout their existence although it is thought that for the most part they matched the men's games, every 4 years. They consisted of three foot races, one in each of three different age categories. Again there is very little information about the format of the races or what the age categories were.

Patricia Monaghan believed that the the age groups match the three phases of women's life: maiden, mother and crone. Hera went through those phases as mortal females did even though she was a Goddess. I like the thought of that I must say. Much more inclusive and female-centric. However, most other sources I looked at, including Pausanius, seem to think the age groups were much younger than that and that only maidens competed. It is entirely possible that whatever the actual age of the participants, they may have represented the phases Monaghan mentions. It is difficult to confirm or reject with any certainty, due to the paucity of information.

It is known that the women used a shortened form of the men's course at the Olympic Stadium and that one of the races was a 160 yard dash. The athletes wore a chiton, which was an off the shoulder short dress in which the right shoulder and breast were left bare. This was an adaptation from a garment that men used to wear when doing labour in hot temperatures.

Courtesy of The British Museum 

They won an olive wreath crown and a portion of the ox/cow that had been slaughtered for Hera on behalf of all the contestants. There may also have been inscribed statues created in honour of the winners. One of the known winners was Chloris. Chloris was the daughter of Niobe and Amphion and was spared being killed by Artemis and Apollo. They killed all (except possibly one other) of her siblings in revenge for Niobe insulting their mother with taunts about how many children she had. The misogyny in there is worth a post in its own right, if in fact that was what actually happened. As mentioned earlier we are looking at this through the prism of male, Christian patriarchy. There seems to have been an awful lot of jealousy/rivalry between women to explain male violence. Some may recognise these excuses even today.

There is also evidence that there were other sporting contests in Sparta in which women competed. The girls of Sparta had unprecedented access to education and sports. The reasons behind this seem very patriarchal in that they wanted more healthy warriors. The cynical side of me thinks that it is typical that equality can be given to women when it suits men's ends! Again there is not much known about the women of Sparta for two reasons. Sparta seemed to have deliberately not recorded its history and those observing and recounting the history were overwhelmingly male and it can probably be safe to say had little to no interest in women and maintaining their history. Gymnopaedia seems to have been a sporting event where young women competed. There does seem to have been some links with this and a showcase for marriage potential with young men making up some of the spectators. Like a sporty debutante ball!

So the Heraean Games were created in response to a woman being thankful for being married to a man. Not the most auspicious of starts nor the most feminist. However its establishment could well have been, in part due to the exclusion of women from the male Olympiad. It could have provided both some kind of parity and satisfied their desire to compete. This pattern is still seen today where women are excluded and organise themselves to redress the balance, especially in sporting events. Even the lesser status of these events still holds true.

If the games did indeed predate the male equivalent then it seems that as far back as Ancient Greek times women recognised the importance of organising women-only or predominantly female spaces. Having read only a little about the amount of misogyny and horrible acts perpetrated against women in these times, I can understand why the women would have wanted to praise and celebrate their own sex.

References

Pausanias, Description of Greece 5. 16. 1 - 8

Marion Bartoli - Well Done!

I did think about writing a post about the misogyny that Marion Bartoli faced when she won Wimbledon. After all this is a feminist blog with a side order of sport. I mainly didn't because, as usual, many other eloquent feminists beat me to it! But also because part of the issue with the misogyny she received was that it detracted from her achievement.

Here is a 28 yr old woman who has just won her first Grand Slam in only her second final. From the moment she stepped on the court she owned it and completely outplayed her opponent. She was never going to lose that match. This is an amazing achievement and it should be shouted from the rooftops.

So Marion Bartoli:

Welcome to the top few of your sport

Well done in achieving what only a handful of other women (or men) will achieve

Well done in reaching your goals

Way to go Marion. Enjoy your moment!

War on Pregnant Women

It seems that once more what pregnant women do and ingest is public property. The latest gem is from Professor Stephen Pilling and the harm that taking anti-depressants could do to unborn babies (unborn babies, you note, not foetuses). More about that particularly disturbing piece later.

A couple of weeks ago it appeared that pregnant women really just aren't doing enough to keep their foetuses safe from harm. So much so that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists decided to be done with it and just make their advice so vague that it could pretty much cover coming into contact with everything at home or work. OK that may be a teeny exaggeration but take a look for yourself. The list is a little unrealistic to say the least. My particular favourite:

• avoid buying new furniture, fabrics, non-stick frying pans and cars when pregnant or nursing

Yes you did read that correctly. When pregnant, don't buy a non-stick frying pan. Not being a chemist I wouldn't like to speculate on the exact reason that is on the list but I am wondering whether the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists had a rare bit of insight. Maybe they realised that pregnant women might become inclined to start chucking the frying pans around in frustration at the lack of life they suddenly find themselves with and the information overload they experience. Who knows who those irrational, hormonal women may hit and what damage they may do with a frying pan in their hand? Best just keep them strapped down, I say. Except of course that's no good for you either. This little gem appeared on my Twitter timeline last month:

Now, how much exercise is required to achieve this 25% increase isn't clear. Nor is what a 25% increase in neurons actually means. Presumably it is a good thing, probably something to do with IQ that well known measure of intelligence. I'll let him off that though, in this case. After all he only had 140 characters to work with. So pregnant women don't even get to laze around in bed all day being waited on hand and foot. Never mind. Getting up and cleaning the house should give us a good workout. Oh wait...

A couple of weeks before it was all about iodine (also linked to IQ). That one was really serious. The male-dominated media didn't decry that one. Maybe that was because they weren't in danger of having to take responsibility for cleaning the house in the same way that this latest statement could imply (given that responsible pregnant women will be naturally in current, heterosexual relationships, preferably married and not on benefits). Yes that is truly cynical of me, but to be honest we have reason to be.

The Daily Mail, not wanting to lose out on women judging gave the Duchess of Cambridge their seal of approval (she must be so relieved) for not being too posh to push. If you don't want to open a Daily Mail link Glosswitch does a great take down without you having to read the article.

So back to Prof Stephen Pillling and SSRIs. The piece is disturbing on several levels. He frames the discussion as though taking SSRIs were a lifestyle choice like drinking or smoking and in fact directly compares them. No alternative or support is offered and any implications for stopping medication are dismissed. Finally he thinks that all women of child-bearing age should be considering this:

"It's not just when a woman who's pregnant is sitting in front of you. I think it needs to be thought about with a woman who could get pregnant. And, that's the large majority of women aged between 15 and 45."

So women are now in a state of pre-pregnancy. And that, as a woman is a very frightening thought. How much of women's freedom could be curtailed by using that argument?

This is all beginning to look much more like control. We just can't be trusted. Again that may seem cynical but you don't have to look that far back in history to see how pregnancy, childbirth and feeding babies, exclusively female tasks, have been co-opted by medical personnel, law enforcers, religion and anyone else who had an opinion on how women should be doing things.

But it isn't 'anyone' that has these opinions is it? It is, in the greater part, men. Men wanting to take control of something beyond their control. Breastfeeding being a perfect example. Male doctors decreeing that breast milk just wasn't good enough, backed up by a capitalist society to create formula. Men wanting to punish women when they feel they have transgressed from their advice or move out of their control. It is deliberate and it is part of our oppression.

This eradication of autonomy and not being allowed to take responsibility for ourselves has had the added bonus of being accompanied by objectification. Whilst running the story on avoiding chemicals when pregnant, Channel 5 showed picture of a pregnant belly - no head or even legs and feet, just a torso. So now we are walking wombs (a popular but apt phrase) or if you prefer, breeders, nicely illustrated by those pictures. The lack of autonomy, the attempts to take control of pregnant women's lives all adds to the general objectification of women in society. We are seen as lesser humans on this planet only to fill particular roles e.g. being objects for men's desires or in this case giving birth to babies. This also has a knock on effect into motherhood. A father's role seems to be able to also encompass his needs and wants. A mother's role is supposed to sacrifice those needs and wants. We are no longer human beings in our own right. Our needs and wants and our children's needs and wants are intertwined in ways a father's is not. And I am not just talking about those early days. A mother's role is to be there for their children, not to be selfish and not to be a burden on anyone, whether that's their partner or the state, especially not the state.

I don't know whether these roles women are slotted into are as a result of objectification; whether objectification leads to women being put into roles or even whether the two are too intrinsically linked to tell and therefore does it matter? One thing is for certain, both aspects are part of oppression and help maintain it.

So what's wrong with just giving us the facts and then letting us make up our own minds? Well, in theory, nothing. But the fact that even needs saying shows how far down the road we already are in losing control of our choices and bodies. I also feel that this is too simplistic in the context of the society that we live in and have a couple of issues with it as a concept.

Firstly not all the information given is accurate, complete and can even be contradictory or offer impossible choices (mental health vs very small risk of damaging the foetus being the perfect example). Plus the sheer volume of information makes it difficult to decide on priorities. Who has time to sift all the information out to see which is important or should be prioritised during their pregnancy? Most women have jobs to do. Some are just trying to survive day by day through their pregnancy.

The second point is that by instructing women on what they should and shouldn't be doing through their pregnancy, there seems to be a definite shifting responsibility for raising new generations from society to individual woman. Rather than looking at the way society has been shaped, we are looking to individuals to change their lifestyle and overcome their social conditioning to get around the obstacles society has put in front of us. Instead of questioning why we have toxic food and household products that pregnant women can't eat or use we are asked to avoid them. That then conveniently absolves the state out of any responsibility for the damage caused. Then there is the contradiction of advertising cleaning products predominantly to women (fit, young women of child-bearing age, no less) and then instructing them not to use those products when pregnant, which has not gone unnoticed. Will there be adverts directed at male partners of pregnant women to take over the cleaning now? I think not. Just like there aren't campaigns to tell men to avoid alcohol as it may increase their chances of committing abuse and violence and therefore damage their foetus and its mother. Or that SSRIs may damage sperm too. Nor will there be efforts to make these products and foods safer. It is all the woman's responsibility.

So a juxtaposition is created. On one hand there seems to be a healthy dose of absolution of responsibilities from society on to women. But then they are implying that we just don't trust women with all that responsibility and bearing children so we need to interfere and give them an impossible set of guidelines to adhere to without the proper support.

It is a lose-lose situation for women that's for sure. It keeps us running round in circles whilst men get on with running the world. Because that is what oppression does to you. Keeps you preoccupied whilst your oppressors are freer and lighter of responsibility and guilt.

So just to reiterate. Yes, we are fully human, not objects to be used. No, we aren't breeders. Yes, we have wants and needs. Yes, we have rights. Yes, we want the fact that we have a life to be recognised and valued. And yes, be scared of pregnant women brandishing non-stick frying pans.

Separating art from the artist: Why should we?

Recently there have been two high profile cases of men who have been celebrated and allowed to continue working having committed serious violent crimes against women. In both cases it has been deemed that their work is more important than their crime. Their crimes have either been ignored or not deemed serious enough to interrupt their career.

The BFI had a "two-month retrospective" of Roman Polanski over January and February. Oh joys. On 10 March 1977 Roman Polanski was charged with the rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen. He pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse but never faced sentencing as he did a runner, to put it bluntly. The BFI didn't even acknowledge the crime in their "retrospective". Conservative with the truth, let's say.

Now, admittedly, I am not an avid "Art" fan. I like some of it, I enjoy watching films, love reading books but I will never be completely immersed in it. Maybe this is why I can't see beyond a man's crimes to appreciate his art, or maybe it is because I am a human being. However, you can see evidence of Polanski's misogyny in his films and his inappropriate fixation on young girls. Chinatown and Tess are particularly problematic in this area, not mention Polanski's relationship with Nastassja Kinski when she was only 15. The attitude and sense of entitlement it takes to rape someone doesn't just appear in isolation. It permeates throughout their life including their work.

I may not be an arts fan but I am a sports fan. On 14th February 2013 Oscar Pistorius killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp by shooting her 4 times. This is not in doubt. Following this killing there was a lot of disbelief and misplaced adulation and barely a mention of his victim. This eradication of Reeva and what happened to her has continued now in that Pistorius has been granted leave to compete abroad whilst waiting on bail for his trial (set to be in June). So the judge in South Africa saw fit to prioritise his career above the crime he has been charged with. Again there is a separation of the crime from the work of the man as if the two are not related.

Pistorius showed a glimpse of his sense of entitlement at the London 2012 Paralympics when losing the 200m to Alan Fonteles. Elite sportsmen often have an arrogance and selfishness which gets them to the top. This selfishness is only one step away from feeling entitlement. When all around you tell you how good you are and how you deserve to win, it will have an impact on your mindset. Allowing him to compete whilst waiting for trial is another incident emphasising that he is allowed special and preferential treatment. It does require a sense of entitlement to shoot your girlfriend through a bathroom door, four times.

You can't separate a man and his work. His work is part of him as is his crime. They don't sit in separate compartments. They overlap. Compartmentalising it is very convenient for the men who commit these crimes and for all other men who commit violence, especially against women. Seeing a crime in isolation from the man denies the connection and the pattern that these men follow. It encourages only focussing on the individual and not only the overall problem of male violence. It perpetuates the rape culture we live in, allows male violence to continue and keeps women oppressed. Ignoring men's behaviour when they commit crimes against women and promoting their work really only sends out one message: women and their lives do not matter.

Not only do we we need to name the problem of male violence but punish it and remember what these men did.

Posted with Blogsy

Misogyny - a taboo word?

Misogyny is a word I have only relatively recently begun to use quite regularly. Before that I felt uncomfortable about it but without really understanding why. I have been prompted to try and articulate why by two recent incidents:

1. A man online stating <read mansplaining> that rape wasn't always an act of misogyny and those that perpetrate it weren't always misogynists.
2. While I was reading Lundy Bancroft's "Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men". As wonderful as the book is I think he has missed a trick when he states that most abusers are not misogynists.

"The notion that abusive men hate women was popularized by Susan Forward's book Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love Them. Dr Forward's description of abusive men are the most accurate ones I have read, but she was mistaken on one point. Most abusers don't hate women. They often have close relationships with their mothers, or sisters, or female friends. A fair number are able to work successfully with a female boss and respect her authority, at least outwardly."

It seems that misogyny/misogynist conjures up images of a man who actively and demonstrably hates all women. After all not even a rapist can be classed as a misogynist, it seems. Dictionaries tend to define misogyny as "hatred of women" which is ambiguous and sounds almost pathological. For me, it is much subtler and more pervasive than this.

Take my first incident. This man (lets call him Bob) went on to say that not only was rape not always misogynistic but the fact that thousands of Russian soldiers raped thousands of German women at the end of the second World War proved it. They couldn't all be misogynists?

Why not? Why couldn't they all be misogynists?

Is it because they had wives and daughters and mothers that they loved? Yet there they were doing a heinous act to someone else's wife/daughter/mother.

Is it because there were so many of them? Surely not all those men could be misogynists? Because that would then open the door for all those men who really do like women but who find themselves "inexplicably" doing hateful acts towards them, suddenly being misogynists. How could that be true?

Is it because it was just a single isolated act? I think this is where both examples start to merge. A man who does one hateful act to one woman can't possibly be a misogynist. A man who treats one woman or only a few women badly can't possibly be a misogynist. Yet in the quote from Bancroft's book he actually gives a clue as to why that probably isn't true. A fair number are able to work successfully with a female boss and respect her authority, at least outwardly.

At least outwardly. So this suggests that beneath a polished surface is a bit of turmoil as to whether he respects his female boss. This is one of the keys. A misogynist has an underlying disrespect for women. He may treat his mother or sister well because they are on that pedestal of "acceptable" women. However the disrespect bubbling beneath the surface "allows" him to commit these seemingly one off acts or abuse only certain women. When Bancroft goes into more detail about abusers it is clear that a lot of them (if not all) have a previous history of abusive relationships; they talk about women in derogatory terms; they want to control their partners. Just because they may be nice/civil/outwardly respectful to some women in their life, does it mean they aren't a misogynist? There is still a pattern of disrespect and disrespect of women is a form of low level misogyny. It isn't the overt hatred that seems to be expected from a misogynist but it perpetuates the subjugation of women.

Bob may have had a point albeit he put it very ineptly in his eagerness to educate us (I am being more than a little generous there). What makes a seemingly ordinary man do such a terrible act as raping a woman? I think that this points to the other half of the definition of misogyny - the fact it is systemic i.e. society allows men to treat women badly and society sees women as less human than men. It gives them permission. This is how so many men abuse the women they are in relationships with. This is how so many soldiers raped so many women. Although the difference was that the soldiers were given explicit permission without repercussion rather than the implied permission abusers take. An important point to also note is that they were given permission to rape specifically because their victims were women. But to actually commit the act of rape they must have thought those women as lesser to themselves. That disrespect must have always been there. It was just brought to the surface.

In Bob's redefinition of rape as a non-misogynistic act he also failed to take into account of the victim's feelings and experience. I am pretty certain that the women being raped thought that the individual soldiers hated them. Coupled with the fact that there was no recourse over their violent acts would make the women feel it was misogynistic. They were raped because they were women. It has always been a special punishment for women. What is more misogynistic than that? How dare this arrogant and privileged man deny these women their experience? To a lesser extent Bancroft is doing the same. He admits society allows men to get away with abusing women yet he fails to make the leap to it being misogyny that allows that. And abusive men, by taking advantage of society become misogynists themselves.

However we are looking at an extreme and unusual act with the mass rape of German women. The average rape is common place and committed by men in pretty average circumstances. Are these men misogynists? Of course they are. The average rapist hasn't just raped one woman for a start. They are using a tool of subjugation against a woman for the purpose of power and control. These men really don't like women. It is quite simple, much more obvious than with an abuser. It is hate. It is misogyny. The clues will be there in their interactions with women.

Overall misogyny is a lot more passive than the traditional view would have you think. Disrespect, viewing women as less than men rather than out and out hatred is what drives it. Society also provides the vessel in which it grows and continues. Without that vessel it would just be individual men doing individual acts of violence and abuse to individual women.

I am not the only person who thinks that the popular definition of misogyny is too simplistic and the actual definition should be much wider than the hatred of all women all the time. Julia Gillard has prompted a rethink by the Macquarie Dictionary and other dictionaries. This is no bad thing. Misogyny is much more widespread than a lone nutcase on a vengeance trip against women. It is time that mainstream society caught up with that.

On a more positive note, not all men have this disrespect and bubbling hatred for women. I am absolutely certain that some of those soldiers refused to rape these women, for example. Just like men refuse to abuse their partners even though society will allow them to get away with it. And it is reversible. We have to believe that. Men are human. They have the capacity to love and admire and respect us too.


http://therealsgm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/16-days-of-action-on-violence-against.html

Are we really having this same argument again?

So it is Wimbledon fortnight 2012 (yes that is 2012) and five years after women finally received equal pay in grand slam tournaments some people (Gilles Simon) are still arguing the toss about this. “Equal Pay for Unequal Work”, the cry from the detractors, superficially could be, a convincing cry. However, along with that is much misogyny and the definite implication that women are inferior.

First of all it isn’t pay that we are talking about, it is prizes. It is perfectly normal and reasonable for men and women to receive the same prize within sport. Take the Olympic Games for example, all winners (and runners up) receive the same prize, no matter what their sport or their event. But the argument against paying equal prize money centres on the fact that women only play best of 3 sets in Grand Slams and men play best of 5. So women are only doing 3/5th of the work of men so should only get 3/5th of the pay of men.

Well let’s take that logic to its conclusion. Athletics is a good example. A marathon runner therefore should be paid how much more than a 100m runner? 10s compared with 7500secs (2:05 hrs - men’s marathon world record). So marathon runners should receive about 750 times the amount of 100m sprinters? Really? No, because of course that would be ridiculous. They all work hard in their own event, no matter how long it lasts. And that hard work is rewarded with the same prize. The hard work is also recognised as not starting and finishing on the competitive field. The misogyny is in the implication that female tennis players don't work as hard as men.  Well that is an age old argument outside sport as well as within it and worthy of a blog  post by itself.  Suffice to say, its veracity is not held in solid foundations.

Whilst still on the 3 sets vs 5 set argument, within Grand Slams women aren’t allowed to play 5 sets. It isn’t because they can’t or because they won’t, but because they aren’t allowed – like recalcitrant children. They obviously need to prove their worth to the men in charge.  And of course timetables would need to be altered and that is obviously too much of a logistical obstacle. More misogyny. It is of course male privilege that allows men to play 5-sets. If women were considered equal to men then it would be bizarre that men and women didn't have the same competition parameters. Yet here we are and tennis is by no means the only culprit within sport.

Most tennis tournaments for men and women are only best of 3 sets and most tournaments are single-sex. As a result women already get paid a lot less than men on tour because the prize money is related to the revenue the tournaments can get. Women’s tournaments are less supported. More misogyny, under the guise of women’s sport just not being good enough or not interesting enough or too shrieky or whatever is flavour of the day. The whole revenue argument is skewed in favour of men anyway, because men are revered for their sporting talent, women not so much. Men have had a monopoly on sport for so long, women are just breaking into it.

Then, of course there is the quality argument. As we all know women’s tennis just doesn’t compare to men’s tennis. The standard is infinitely lower and there is no strength in depth. In fact, why don’t they all just quit now? Well first of all quality and standards are pretty subjective. Then, who gets to be arbiter of whether women have reached a sufficient standard that they are now equal. If, indeed, that mythical standard could ever be achieved (because after all women just aren’t men). At this point it is important to note that there are many more barriers for women than men in entering sport. There is societal pressure and gender stereotyping, lack of media attention, lack of funding and encouragement and also the legacy of women being banned from certain sports and events (some of which is still in evidence today) which means women are behind the men in terms of numbers and probably strength in depth. However, women’s tennis is probably on a par with men’s tennis say 30 years ago, yet men weren’t being denied their rewards for their labour then. More misogyny.

However, this is constantly comparing women to men which seems pretty pointless as they don’t play against each other. It also sets men as the default, as usual. If tennis was a women-only sport then the emphasis on quality of play would be in comparison to previous years/decades. And if you look back over the decades then there has been huge improvement in women’s tennis.

Even accepting that women's tennis may not be as competitive as men's tennis, why does this matter? The women involved are still doing the training, still putting in the effort to win. In fact, why would a discrepancy in prize money be the best way of increasing the quality and player base?  Maybe giving equal pay, increasing revenue, better coaching, participation initiatives and further encouragement of women within sport might be a better way of going about it. Penalising women financially, isn't going to be an incentive to increasing competitiveness, if that is of course the goal.  If the goal is to put women back in their box then financially penalising them is entirely the right way of going about it.

Male tennis players have not had to forfeit any privilege, power or revenue in order for women to be paid equal amounts (Wimbledon prize money since 1968). So they have given up nothing yet they still argue against it. They really just don’t think women are equal or deserving. And of course they want the final word as to when the female tennis players are worthy. Really, this could on for decades. Any excuse to justify why women should not be paid as much as men. It's all a bit chilling.