By Peter Baofu, Ph.D.
The recent verbal clash between the former Indian Wells tennis tournament director, Raymond Moore, and top-ranked Novak Djokovic, on the one hand, and their vocal female counterparts on "equal pay," on the other hand -- and the legal complaint by the U.S. women's national football team with the federal government for "equal pay" -- reveal an uncomfortable truth that women, on average, are the "weaker" gender in sports (often unspoken of in mainstream media because of its political incorrectness), for 2 main reasons (to be explained below).
An important implication here is that the mainstream feminist ideology is increasingly degenerating into a new "corrupt" form of "anti-meritocracy," all in the name of "equality." Thus, the current democratic slogan of "equal work, equal pay" will not last, to be eventually superseded by what I call "equal contribution, equal pay" in "post-democracy" (in my previous publications), where an individual (regardless of gender) can be paid more because of superior performance in a given activity, just as a group (regardless of gender) can receive higher pay (on average) due to its superior achievement in a given field, without the ideological distortion of artificially framing "equality" for all -- such that men are superior than women in some areas (like the military, martial arts, and leadership) on average, that women are superior than men in other areas (like babysitting and nursing) on average, that men and women are more or less the same in certain areas (like cashier jobs and street cleaning) on average, but that the two genders are not equal overall (like women as the "weaker" gender) on average.
(1) SPORTS REVEAL THE WEAKER GENDER, ON AVERAGE
The first main reason for the unsustainable democratic politics of "equality" in our time, in the context of sports, has to do with the uncomfortable truth that sports reveal women as the biologically "weaker" gender, on average.
In sports, there are "women's sports" and "men's sports," and this separation (or segregation) is to protect women (as the "weaker" gender) from men (as the "stronger" gender), so that women have a chance to win (against other women, but not against men) and men are not allowed to dominate them (women) in sports, "on average." Of course, this will change one day in the "post-human" world of "cyborgs," "thinking robots," "genetically altered beings," etc. (as already elaborated in my 85 books so far on the "post-human future"), but this "post-human" topic is not relevant in this article about "humans."
Also, the words "on average" above are important, as all generalizations have exceptions, and good examples at the group level include "synchronized swimming," "ball rhythmic gymnastics," and so on, where women perform better in these "feminine" sports. And at the individual level, a good example is well given by a tennis fan in the article titled "Can a First Class Woman Tennis Player Beat an Average Man Tennis Player?" (2008), who thus answered: "men are more athletic and just better at sports than women. take the best woman and best man in any sport and the man will ALWAYS WIN. That's just the way things go. Sorry" -- but a first class female tennis player can beat an average or mediocre male tennis player.
With this clarification in mind, the main weakness of the feminist argument for "equal pay" in sports is their hypocritical contradiction between their ideological ("socially constructed") belief that women and men have the "same" physical abilities (so as to suggest that women deserve "equal pay," so the feminist story goes) and their stubborn refusal to end the segregation in sports and to compete against men (which then perpetuates the separation of sports into women's sports and men's sports). Unless women are willing to end the segregation in sports and able to beat men in sports and win championships time and again, without taking refuge in "women's sports" from men's domination, there is a lot of truth to the "biological" generalization that "women are the weaker gender," on average.
The "biological" differences between women and men in sports have much to do with what biologists call "hormones" and "testosterones," and this is the main reason that, when female players (like some Soviet athletes during the Cold War) take "testosterone" injections, they look incredibly masculine in their body shapes and have extra (stronger) strength than the average (normal) female players.
The feminists are afraid of talking about this "biological" inequality between men and women (because they do not want to admit their "weaker" gender) but instead hide themselves in the "cultural" argument about the "patriarchal order" which is to preserve male dominance, so this feminist conspiracy theory goes. Their refusal to look into the mirror of their "biological" weakness only reflects their physical inferiority complex.
In tennis, for example, women play only 3 sets as the maximum in Grand Slam events, whereas men have to play 5. In addition, male tennis players have more powerful serves and longer stamina, and they are often faster and stronger or are simply more athletic, on average. It is also no wonder that, in order to compensate for women's "weaker" gender, the balls used in most tennis tournaments are also differently made specifically for women and men, since "the women's balls are very different to the men's balls. They're much quicker, smaller [lighter], livelier," as reported by Michelle Kaufman for The Age: Sport on April 01, 2016.
In other sports like boxing, mixed martial arts, baseball, basketball, American football, non-American soccer, and the like, women's biological (physical) "weakness" is all the more revealing, when contrasted with men's strength. In mixed martial arts, for instance, top female MMA fighters like Holly Holm and Ronda Rousey do not want to face top male MMA fighters, as they could be easily beaten up (in a bloody way) by these top male MMA fighters. This "biological" inequality is important to understand why women's sports (like women's world cup in soccer, heavyweight boxing, and so on) often do not draw the kind of attention or excitement that men's sports (like men's world cup in soccer, heavyweight boxing, and so on) enjoy around the world.
Thus, women in sports, on average, are afraid of men's physical superiority, as shown in the following 2 arguments often used by feminists, for illustration.
First, in tennis, even Martina Navratilova, one of the best female tennis players in history, argued that "people who disagree with women receiving equal pay at the grand slams keep making the argument that women don't play three out of five sets....But maybe the point should be that the men should be playing two out of three....I knew the other girl would get tired," as reported by Mark Hodgkinson for Tennis Space on June 22, 2013 and Jane McManus on September 03, 2012. And Victoria Azarenka, another top female tennis player in the world, thus made the same point: "I think there has been a lot of talk about (women playing best-of-five)....I actually think men should play three sets," so "it is the men that should come down to the...level" of women.
This feminist call for men to lower their performance (for the sake of women) is not surprising, because many female tennis players are too envious of male superior performance to accept the fact that all the best matches in the history of tennis have been ranked and that they are played out by men in the best of 5 sets in Grand Slam events, as shown in the following ten most brilliant matches in the history of tennis as reported by Tomas Hegedus on January 30, 2012:
1. Australian Open 2012 Final -- Novak Djokovic vs. Rafael Nadal 5-7 6-4 6-2 6-7 (5) 7-5
2. Wimbledon 2008 Final -- Rafael Nadal vs. Roger Federer 6-4 6-4 6-7 (5) 6-7 (8) 9-7
3. Wimbledon 1980 Final -- Bjorn Borg vs. John McEnroe 1-6 7-5 6-3 6-7 (16) 8-6
4. US Open 2001 Quarterfinals -- Pete Sampras vs. Andre Agassi 6-7 (7) 7-6 (2) 7-6 (2) 7-6 (5)
5. Wimbledon 2001 Final -- Goran Ivanisevic vs. Patrick Rafter 6-3 3-6 6-3 2-6 9-7
6. Australian Open 2005 Quarterfinals -- Marat Safin vs. Roger Federer 5-7 6-4 5-7 7-6 (6) 9-7
7. Roland Garros 1984 Final -- Ivan Lendl vs. John McEnroe 3-6 2-6 6-4 7-5 7-5
8. Australian Open 2003 Quarterfinal -- Andy Roddick vs. Younes Aynaoui 4-6 7-6 (5) 4-6 6-4 21-19
9. Wimbledon 2009 Final -- Roger Federer vs. Andy Roddick 5-7 7-6 (6) 7-6 (5) 3-6 16-14
10. Rome Masters 2006 Final -- Rafael Nadal vs. Roger Federer 6-7 (0) 7-6 (5) 6-4 2-6 7-6 (5)
Historically, as explained in the article "Why Do Women Play only 3 Sets in Tennis and Men Play Five?" (2008), "physically it is considered inappropriate to do 5 set matches for women. It was tried a few times and wasn't entertaining, so it's now 3 sets only for all matches. Even for men, it's only the Grand Slam events which go to 5 sets." For this reason, Cheri Britton aptly observed that "a best-of-five-sets Slam match would gain the extra respect and gravitas" that these male tennis players deserve, as reported by Jane McManus on September 03, 2012.
Obviously, there is the selfish (biased) feminist politics for "equal pay" behind their call for men to lower their superior performance, since many female tennis players understand that one of the best ways for them to achieve the goal of "equal pay" is to force men to lower their level of play so as to be equal with the lower level of women.
And second, in tennis and many other sports, feminist players never call for an end of the separation of sports into women's sports and men's sports, because they (women) know quite well that women could not win much of anything at all if they were to compete against men, on average again. Serena Williams, for example, bragged about her 21 single titles in tennis as better than the 17 single titles by Roger Federer. But Serena won these 21 single titles against other women (not against men), so the comparison is as much incorrect as misleading, but if she were to play against the top male tennis players instead, she would not have won any of these 21 single titles at all. However, Serena, in her honest moment, once made this frank confession about men's superior strength in 2010: "I honestly think men's and women's tennis are completely opposite. Men are just stronger than ladies. I even have trouble reading my hitting partner and he is not professional, although he would make a good professional player. It really is comparing apples to oranges," as reported by Khalid A-H Ansari on July 06, 2010.
Similarly, in soccer, the U.S. women's national soccer team bragged about their winning the Olympic gold and the World Cup, whereas the U.S. men's national soccer team has yet to win one. But this comparison is as much incorrect as misleading, because the U.S. women's national soccer team won the Olympic gold and the World Cup against other women's national soccer teams (not against men's), but if the U.S. women's national soccer team were to play against Brazil men's national soccer team (or other top men's national soccer teams from Germany, France, etc.) instead, it could not have won any of these titles.
Even worse, a women-pleasing myth (or propaganda) perpetuated by feminists in tennis (and elsewhere) concerns the exhibition match tiled "The Battle of the sexes" between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs in 1973's, but there are three problems in this propaganda.
The first problem is that Bobby was already too old at the time to play tennis as a professional, since he was a retired 55 years old man (senior) at the time when he played Billie in 1973, who was only 29 and in her prime at the time (#2-ranked).
The second problem is that Bobby accepted the match anyway, not for tennis but for "money" to pay off his debts to the mafia at the time, because "Hal Shaw, who was at the time working as an assistant golf instructor in Tampa, Florida, has come forward to offer new evidence that the match was indeed thrown," because "Frank Ragano, a renowned mob attorney, discuss[ed] the match-fixing plan with the crime bosses Santo Trafficante Jr and Carlos Marcello one night at his golf club." Shaw told ESPN that "Ragano was emphatic. Riggs had assured him that the fix would be in" so "he would go 'in the tank' against King," and "the mobsters made clear Riggs wanted his substantial gambling debts with them paid off in return for throwing the game, which would allow them to confidently place a lucrative bet," as "Ragano says, 'Well, he's going to [get] peanuts compared to what we're going to make out of this, so he has asked for his debt to be erased,'" as reported by Jon Swaine for the Telegraph on August 27, 2013. Of course, King denied the story but did not offer any evidence to prove it wrong.
And the third problem is that the feminists did not mention the losses in the other two battles of the sexes, namely, the 6-2, 6-1 victory by Bobby Riggs (age 55) against Margaret Court (age 30) on May 13, 1973 and the 7-5, 6-2 victory by Jimmy Connors (age 40) against Martina Navratilova (age 35) on September 25, 1992, so this shows that even a much older male player (in tennis) can still beat any of the top female players.
(2) EXCELLENCE IN SPORTS IS BASED ON COMPETITION, ON AVERAGE
The second main reason for the unsustainable democratic politics of "equality" in our time, in the context of sports, has to do with the uncomfortable truth that excellence in sports is based on competition (between two opposing sides), on average, both for "team" sports and "individual" sports.
The words "on average" here are important, because there are exceptions, as sports can be used for "entertaining exhibition," for "match-fixing," for "political show," and the like, but then on these exceptional occasions, the "excellence" in sports is compromised or sacrificed for something else.
With this clarification in mind, after the verbal clash between the former Indian Wells tennis tournament director, Raymond Moore, and top-ranked Novak Djokovic, on the one hand, and their vocal female counterparts on "equal pay," on the other hand -- Billie Jean King, Women's Tennis Association founder, joined the debate and told CNN's Christiane Amanpour on Thursday (March 31, 2016) that "it's more about what's morally the right thing to do," as "we can set a great example about getting the gender gap and salaries even" and "to make the world a better place."
But this feminist egalitarian moral ideal is not consistent with excellence in sports as based on competition (between two opposing sides), in two fundamental ways (to be explained below), as I already elaborated in my previous article titled "Feminist Corruption, and its Contribution to Sexism and Reverse-Sexism" (Nov.11, 2013).
First, the feminist egalitarian moral ideal ignores the "biological" roots of gender inequality and thus (unintentionally) perpetuates the negative stereotype against women, in that women are not as capable as men, because the top female tennis players simply cannot beat their male counterparts, unless the men are either too old and already retired (like Bobby) or the match is "fixed" (like the myth surrounding "the Battle of the sexes" between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs in 1973), or a top female player beats an average male player, or a top male player has a "bad day," or there is the refuge of women in women's sports (to protect themselves from male dominance), and so on.
And second, the feminist egalitarian moral ideal creates a new form of sexism against men (or what I call "reverse sexism" in my previous publications), since female tennis cannot be favorably compared with male tennis, unless men are forced to lower their level of play for gender equality, because many female tennis players are too envious of male overachievement to accept the fact that all the best matches in the history of tennis have been ranked and that they are played out by men in the best of 5 sets in Grand Slam events.
In the end, contrary to King's assertion, the feminist egalitarian moral ideal is on the wrong side of history, as it contributes to a new oppressive world in these 2 fundamental ways (not "to make the world a better place" as unwarrantedly claimed), unto the direction of a new "corrupt" form of "anti-meritocracy."
As the old saying goes, "the road to hell is often paved with good intentions." By ignoring the "biological" roots of gender inequality and fixating on "cultural" and "social" arguments, the feminist campaign for "equal pay" produces the two unintended consequences of (a) perpetuating the traditional "sexism" against women and (b) creating the new "reverse-sexism" against men.
In any case, the feminist egalitarian moral ideal reflects the democratic politics of "equality" in our time, which, however, is not sustainable and will be eventually superseded by what I called "equal contribution (or achievement), equal pay" in "post-democracy" in future eras (as already worked out in my books titled "The Future of Post-Human Sports" and "Beyond Democracy to Post-Democracy"), where an individual (regardless of gender) can be paid more because of superior performance in a given activity, just as a group (regardless of gender) can receive higher pay (on average) due to its superior achievement in a given field, without the ideological distortion of artificially framing "equality" for all -- such that men are superior than women in some areas (like the military, martial arts, and leadership) on average, that women are superior than men in other areas (like babysitting and nursing) on average, that men and women are more or less the same in certain areas (like cashier jobs and street cleaning) on average, but that the two genders are not equal overall (like women as the "weaker" gender) on average.
In the end, "equal work, equal pay" (a) lowers human potential and (b) creates a more oppressive social world, contrary to what the feminist ideologues would like us to believe. Perhaps it is now high time for men to start what I call a "masculist" movement to counter the increasingly extremist pushes by these feminists who want nothing less than women's domination in the long term (not by innate ability but by preferential treatment -- a new form of corruption) in a very subtly incremental way. The more egalitarian measures these feminists push for, the more corrupt they become over time, as the feminist movement is increasingly degenerating into a new form of "anti-meritocracy," all in the name of "equality."
The time will come one day when the feminist moral ideal will be "deconstructed," towards the direction of what I called (in my books) the "trans-feminine value ideals" in "post-democracy." Instead of "equal work, equal pay" in "democracy," there will be "equal contribution (or achievement), equal pay" in "post-democracy" (for a truer form of "meritocracy").
Dr. Peter Baofu was a U.S. Fulbright Scholar and had taught as a Professor at different universities in America, Western Europe, the Caucasus, the Middle East, the Balkans, Central Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia (besides having visited/lived in more than 70 countries around the world). He was educated in the states, with 5 academic degrees (including a Ph.D. from M.I.T. in Cambridge, Massachusetts), was a summa cum laude graduate, and was awarded the Delta Sigma Pi Scholarship Key for being at the top of the class in the College of Business Administration, with another student. He is the author of 85 books and 87 new theories (as well as numerous articles), all of which provide a visionary challenge to all conventional wisdom in the social sciences, the formal sciences, the natural sciences, and the humanities, with the aim for a "unified theory of everything" -- together with numerous visions of the mind, nature, society, and culture in future history. He can be contacted by email: email@example.com