Wow, this is interesting, a couple of questions...

1. So to an ACist, "the government (singular) has a mind of it's own, independent and unique of any ruling elite behind it. Who's interest does the government (singular) work for? For nobodies at all? For the Lizard people?

2. And the even more amazing part is that there multiple governments to an ACist -- a "national governement" and an "international government". Yikes --oh but wait -- does this "international government" directly charge taxes? If so how, I don't directly pay them? And to be consistent, if there is an "international" government then wouldn't the "national" governments be victims of this "international" government too, just like US States -vs- the US federal government.

So to be consistent, ACist should be for the "national" governments for the exact same reasons they would be for the CSA -- they should be for the "national" governments to "secede" from the "international" government, EZ game.

So you consistent ACists, --- go USA government! go UK government! go Japan government! go Russia government! ACists love secession for the sake of sucession, so just like the CSA they are in favor of all present "national" governments under their "international" the "THE STATE", amirite?

that's a good question. same thing for the golf majors. i have no idea. normally in sports there's competition for talent in the labor market but wimbledon is basically a monopsony. it's not like nadal, or almost any top player, would play some other tournament if, next year, the prizepool were 60% the size it is now.

This ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...don-women.html ) is not the equivalent of a private conversation in a pub. In fact, it's the complete opposite when the prime minister talks about it in the parliament.

Another point is the question where people get the 'equality' meme from, which is to a large extent from government mandatory schooling and curricula.

no, in the terms of coercion vs non-threatening suggestion, an mp talking in parliament is not the complete opposite of an mp talking to someone in a pub.

the opposite is a law passed mandating equal pay.

most people in this thread, including a number of minarchists and ACists, think that the mp talking in parliament is much, much closer to the private pub conversation than it is to passing a law.

Nielsio,

The prime minister doesn't care about pay equality at Wimbledon, all he cares about is pr/media and giving the right soundbite, same as the Wimbledon organisers.

Wimbledon is seen a prized sporting event here, so are you suggesting there were threats made to Wimbledon by the government? Wimbledon did what they felt was in their best interests.

This thread might not be the best...

If they are going to pay them equally then they should not divide them by sex. They should just put them all together and let them play it out......

I have a strong suspicion that most who support Nielsio's position thinking Title IX is garbage or at the very least that men's sports that "pay for themselves" and are "more popular" should be exempt from consideration.

There's clearly some problems with title IX when it causes the elimination of programs to stay compliant.

Why? Seems hard to talk about the issues of this thread without including that.

I don't disagree at all, I just strongly suspect that arguments used against Title IX if applied to women's tennis would support equal wages. Especially around the time period the change took place.

you cannot be serious

every player should receive his/ her marginal product of labour imo

every player should get whatever he agreed to receive imo.

Faux pas imo

Why hasn't this thread been merged with the Tennis Prop bet thread in HSNL?

gg western civilization

i for one welcome our coming muslim overlords

Maybe, but having more viewers per game doesn't mean they will have more viewers in the final matches, which are the ones that award the big prizes.

Like you said, men watch a lot of female tennis and it's mostly because female players are usually hot. But because they're only watching hot girls running around and bending over while wearing miniskirts and small shirts; and not really a tennis match, they don't really care that much about who wins. Especially when some of the winners are the least hot as they are the ones with the most boy-ish looks (for obvious reasons).

go on...

Well, girls who look more like boys than other girls do will have a tendency to be better at sports than other girls.

However, more attractive girls may have more encourament and a higher self-esteem that drives them to pursue things other girls don't. Which is why a lot of female tennis players are hot nonetheless. Also, tennis tends to be a sport that kids from wealthier-than-average families pursue, as it's much more expensive to pay for tennis classes or rent a court than for most other sports. And more wealthy families tend to have more attractive female children (again, for obvious reasons, but also for not so obvious ones).

citation needed

Citation for what?

Men are better at sports than women, on average.

Women who look more like men than other women will tend to have less physiological differences with men in general than the average woman does.

I saw this thread title over the weekend and decided to save reading it for this morning's coffee break at work.

[X] thread delivers

in all seriousness, this has got to be waaaay, waaaaay, waaaaaaaaay down the list of things it makes sense for ACers to complain about.

FWIW I don't think "ACers" are complaining about it. One of them is. The rest of this thread seems to be bickering over tangential items.

That is true. I should have said "someone who support ACism".

the only reason I said anything is that you're not the first person ITT to say something like that.