Month: February 2007

My initial reaction is huzzahs to the folks at Wimbledon for equalizing the prize money between the men and the women competing at the Big Tennis Shindig there.

Genteel and old-fashioned Wimbledon discarded one of its longest traditions – unequal pay. The All England Club yielded to 21st century realities Thursday, agreeing to pay women the same as men and falling in line with the other Grand Slam tournaments.

Six-time singles champion Billie Jean King, a pioneer for women’s sports, said the decision was “a long time coming.”

“With women and men paid on an equal scale, it demonstrates to the rest of the world that this is the right thing to do for the sport, the tournament and the world,” she said.

[…] “It’s good news for all the women players, and recognizes their major contribution to Wimbledon and we also believe it will serve as a positive encouragement for women in sports,” club chairman Tim Phillips said. “In short, good for tennis, good for women players and good for Wimbledon.”

[…] “This is an historic and defining moment for women in the sport of tennis, and a significant step forward for the equality of women in our society,” WTA Tour chief executive Larry Scott said.

But … is it?

The All England Club previously held out against equal prizes as a matter of principle. Phillips had cited that men play best-of-five set matches while the women play best of three.

I heard some complaints on the radio this morning making just that point — that one reason why men “deserve” more prize money than women is that, essentially, they work harder for it. Taken a step further, from a purely competitive standpoint, why offer the same prize money if we assume that the male champions could beat the women (generally speaking an issue with women’s sports overall). If we want to reward the best, then setting aside half the competitors (the women) and
telling them that we’ll reward them for their best, but protect them from competition against the other best hardly seems “fair.” We’re not promoting “equality” we’re furthering artificial distinctions between the genders.

Be that as it may, bottom line we’re not rewarding the best players here — we’re rewarding successful investments. As Terry pointed out, and as is hinted above (“recognizes their major contribution to Wimbledon”), women’s tennis draws as many advertising dollars as men’s tennis these days, so why not treat them the same? And I have no problem with that, and that shows a broad public interest in female athletics. To that degree,
then, we are promoting parity, if not equality, That that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

Presenting … Conservapedia!

Conservapedia is a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American. On Wikipedia, many of the dates are provided in the anti-Christian “C.E.” instead of “A.D.”, which Conservapedia uses. Christianity receives no credit for the great advances and discoveries it inspired, such as those of the Renaissance. Read a list of many Examples
of Bias in Wikipedia.

Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America. Conservapedia has easy-to-use indexes to facilitate review of topics. You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of “political correctness”.

Oh. My.

Among those examples of “bias” are:

1. The use of BCE/CE instead of BC/AD. Now, I prefer the latter, too, for traditional purposes. But this isn’t “anti-Christianity,” it’s an attempt to be non-religious (which, believe or not, is not the same thing). Further, the charge is not that Wikipedia forces the BCE/CE standard (the way Conservapedia forces BC/AD in its “Commandments“), but that it “allows” it. Egads!
2. Wikipedia “allows” various British/non-American spellings in various topics, “even though most English speaking users are American,” Those damn Limey-loving bastards!
3. Wikipedia doesn’t have a conservative bias, and actually emphasizes evolution, “even though most Americans (and probably most of the world) reject the theory of evolution.” Most of the objections are that Wikipedia is biased because it doesn’t include conservatively biased sources.
4. Wikipedia has lots of trivial entries and errors, and only relies on the contributing public (instead of Accepted Authorities) to correct it. Loosey-goosey elitists!

Or, to quote Conservapedia’s entry on Wikipedia …

The administrators who monitor and control the content on Wikipedia do not represent the views of the majority of Americans, and many are in fact not American. For example, only 10% of Americans accept evolution as it is taught in public school, yet many Wikipedia administrators accept it as a sourced fact, and will censor material that contradicts evolution.

Conservapedia sure seems a lot more interested in ideological correctness (“we favor Christianity and America”) than in actually dealing with facts, and in tearing down Wikipedia than in demonstrating that it’s a reliable source of information. Yeesh.

(via SEB)