Patrick is correct. The article's authors ask "Why, then, does women’s tennis have smaller television audiences and fewer fans and sponsors than men’s tennis?" Their answer is sexism, whatever that is in this context.
The more likely answer is because women are less skillful and therefore less entertaining. Sport is entertainment. Martina Navratilova reckoned she would be in the men's top 100 if the man only had one serve.
Why watch number 99s on Saturday when number 1s are on Sunday?

I agree it's about entertainment and I personally find listening to the screeching and wailing (not grunting) of the likes of Azarenka and Sharapova about as entertaining as a jackhammer in the middle of the night. Also there are more lopsided, error ridden finals in the women's game than the men's. I'm sure I could dig up stats to back this up. If people find that entertaining and are happy to pay more than $300 to see it, fine. I wouldn't. I have also wondered what would happen to the women's game if they didn't play slams and masters series events at the same time as the men....

Sue, I find it interesting that no-one is calling for the men to play only three sets of tennis. I find the 5 hour long tennis matches incredibly boring, and would much rather a shorter game. Men's tennis tends to be far less interesting to watch IMO, and highly predictable, so of less entertainment value than women's tennis.

The lack of interest in women's sport in our society as a whole, IMO flows onto a lack of interest young women and girls have in taking up a sport. They simply have far fewer and well known role models to aspire to. I have seen many a young girl discouraged in pursuing a sport they love, because any achievements they make are not seen by the public, and not valued, apart from isolated areas like swimming etc, (mostly individual sports rather than team sports).

There has been some change over the last couple of decades, with the televising of netball, women's golf, and the odd women's cricket match, but on the whole there needs to be much more equality in the televising and recognition of women's sport.

It is difficult to discuss some subject when the other person doesn’t have much sense of humour.

I wouldn’t be suggesting more television coverage of women’s sport, but something a little more adventurous and exciting for women, which is to develop their own sport.

Instead of piggybacking on the backs of men, and waiting for them to develop a sport, develop the rules, develop the equipment etc, and THEN coming into the sport, and THEN saying that men are sexist (or using feminists to say that men are sexist), women can develop their own sport, develop the rules, develop the equipment etc.

In that way women have something to show, and won't need to call men sexist.

Problem solved.

It is difficult, but time for women to show a little more effort.

Many new sports are being invented, and time now for women to invent just one.

Instead of continuously relying on ment to invent everything, and then complaining about it afterwards.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that McEnroe used those temper tantrums as a psychological tool in matches. Vent some frustration, throw off his opponent, resettle himself and focus, and come back.

I think that the article writer was going to follow up this article and that this was not the totality of what she was trying to say.
I am firmly convinced of this as she based much of her hypothesis on gender inequity in tennis on the comments of a single and obviously chauvanist male player.
I am absolutely convinced that she is not trying to establish one male tennis players views as a standard by which the public or all male players, or all men in general or whomever, base their opinions on.
She is an Associate Professor and I am sure would not make such a mistake in her writing.
I expect that all these things brought to light in the gigantic holes in the discourse will be addressed.
The lack of consistency between the unable to control emotions and the McEnroe dilemma.
The fact that men ARE faster and stronger and people ARE often more interested in watching faster and strong people playing tennis.
The quality of tennis in respect to close games and forced and unforced errors and the like compared in mens and womens tennis.
The fact that there is not the same regular stable of close competitive top grade womens champions as what there is mens.
The fact that she has chosen to pick one male player's chauvanist comments and run an article based on implied chauvanist and misogynistic intent not just wth him but casting it further than him with no real indication as to how she has managed to make the leap from him to general opinion.

I think she will address these things because it would really impact on the artcle's credibility not to address such points. It will make the article seem either a reactive affront to a random male tennis player being chauvanistic AND/OR her wanting to be opportunistic about putting out feminist ideology.

I hope she does address these things and that there is more behind this article because it just doesn't really seem to nail it. She may really have a point and maybe what she says is true. I wish she would show it.

Please quote my sentence in full, "Its not that one is better than the other, just that men and women play differently".

I understand that some people may enjoy the men playing tennis more than the women, and some may enjoy the women playing tennis more than the men. These views are subjective only, and are no indication of the quality of tennis. Men and women do play differently, there is unequal strength involved, so they do not play each other in tournaments because of this inequality, which is biological and unchangeable.

For the same reasons we do not expect 12 year olds to play against adults, we expect them to compete against other 12 year olds.

I think you are right.
I think that the article is certainly not that strong or convincing and th feminist view pretty unsubstantiated.
The thing is, I do not necessarily think it is wrong. I think that the argument was poor and not well backed and so on.
As to your position that, yes these differences are not necessarily worse and that it makes for a different type of gameplay..absolutely.
As I mentioned earlier, I do not think that many could argue that mens gymnastics is a powerful mix of strength, control and flexibility and relies far more on the strength aspect that ghe flexibility and speed. It is impressive certainly, just not my cup of tea.
It is different to the female gymnastics which I find far more entertaining. The speed and flexibility of the womens gymnastics is a style I prefer. I do not expect that men should have to do exactly what the women do, nor do i think the difference of style better or worse. I have a preference that is all.
This is what you are saying about mens and womens tennis and I think it is well said.
I do think that money is indifferent and that it is a circular progression of fame and media coverage and sponsorship endorsement. Each aspect informing the other. I do not think that ascribing lack of gender equality in endorsements is really a point well made if the players are not as interesting or as compelling to the public. If that is the case they will not be covered by the media nor attain the fame and sponsorship that comes along with it. Conversely, once they are, then so long as they do not screw up too badly they will continue to get coverage which converts to fame which converts to sponsorship. Regardless of gender.
The grunting aspect? I don't think it is cheating and I do not see it as necessarily "unladylike" or "unsupportsmanlike", but it is a distraction away from the game and a bit of an assault on the ears,

Its interesting that so many people have a problem with the vocalisations of tennis players, particularly the female ones. Tennis is primarily a visual sport, (like most sports), and its pretty easy to mute the sound and not miss a thing. I often do this with cricket, as I find the commentators irritating in the extreme, with their endless waffle.

I think that as a society we are still influenced be many outdated ideas, such as the concept of what constitutes "unladylike" behaviour, or what value is put on sporting skills that require more than just brute strength. Or ideas that men have to compete, and that women lack a competitive spirit. These things are changing, but the progress is glacially slow.

Only when we start to value sporting skill that is equal but different, (as you have pointed out in gymnastics), will the support for these sports increase, and we will see more sponsorship and televising of different sports.

I think that there is also the issue of participation in sports, that influences which sports are televised. For example, many women play or have played netball, and appreciate the skill of the elite players, and want to see this sport played at a high level, this is one of the reasons why netball is televised, and a game like softball is not. We are seeing sports like lawn bowls being televised more often now, as again, many people participate in this sport and want to see it being played at elite levels. Personally, as a keen golfer, I would love to see more televised golf, both male and female, as both have different but equal skills, but there is only so much time, and some sports will inevitably miss out, and at the moment.

I would love to see people get past this us and them division, and appreciate the different skills and abilities of athletes, both male and female, rather than always pitting one against the other, and start realising that different does not mean worse, it simply means different. This issue is not confined to sports, it permeates every aspect of society, but that's for another discussion.

A lot of what you say, I do agree with.
More and more these days I find myself if not at odds with societal norms, simply not understanding them and being mildly amused by them.
So I can not contest things like what is or is not unladylike or not.
You are also right that there is competitiveness in televising sports and at the moment it seems to favour the mens teenis in respect to what is deemed better viewing between men and women.
The crux of this articles seems to infer a causal relationship between sexism and limited viewing. I simply think that the article is lazy. It could be right but it made no case and has been soundly beaten to death for its laziness.
So..this difference and people's appreciation of one style and one fit for one sport. (This may or may not be sexist or have its basis in sexism, not going to go there as I do not really have an opinion on whether it is or isn't, this article certainly does not give much food for thought though). It may just be that people are used to one particular style of sport. Now to my thinking, if you say that there are other aspects of different sports that can be appreciated, then perhaps it is simply education. I am thinking of this in likening it to maybe cultural appreciation of different food, music, humour, or whatever.
Maybe people don't see the compelling aspects of many womens sports because they do not see what you and, no doubt others see.
Someone who likes heavy metal and bourbon, may not really recognise the experience of Mozart and Red wine. I am the former. It in this case is simply a lack of eductaion and appreciation.
Media and money will always go with what is percieved as more popular.

I also agree with much of what you are saying Ross. I think, rather than a lack of education, the reason people fail to appreciate many different forms of sport, music, etc, is simply a lack of exposure during their formative years. There is probably a sexist element to this issue as well, but as you say, the author of this article has failed to show a causative link. Sexism is IMO an underlying factor, inherent in our whole society, and sport simply reflects this, sometimes glaringly.

I found it interesting that there was no mention of "ungentlemanly" behaviour, or accusations of a lack of control of emotions, when Andy Murry shouted obscene language after losing his match, this is also part of a sexist double standard in regards to behaviour of sports people. I'm sure there would of been a media storm if one of the female tennis players had shouted "f*cks sake" after losing a point.

Its sad to see that so many on this comments section have used this forum as another avenue to slag off women's sporting abilities, and women in general.

I totally agree with your last sentence "Media and money will always go with what is perceived as more popular." This is part of our consumerist society.

Judith at this point it looks like you write a more compelling critique than the author of the article and do actually provide food for thought.
I personally take issue with sexism and find it uncomfortable. The more sexist the more repellant. (Unless of course it is overdone as a means to mock itself),
Feminism too, is not all good. It is not all bad by any means (and certainly one can not view its role is promoting women and in addressing gender inequalities).
I view it like I view religion. If people tell me they are religious, I am wary. People tell me they are feminist, I am wary.
As to gender equality? I am a strong believer in empowering females (women and girls). I do not think it detracts from men to do so. I would like to think that any endevour that women take part in, should not be mocked or derided.
But I have rather selfish reasons for wanting and being supportive of gender equality.

I have a daughter.

The label of Sexism is thrown around far too liberally, so to speak, & without substance, probably due to a complete lack of understanding of the definition of sexism, or any bigotry for that matter.

The feminist/socialist logic presented so often would label my preference for pizza over beer as bigotry; or preference for German over Australian/Asian cars as racist... or my preference to watch males in tennis for their athletic superiority as sexist, or to watch attractive females play as sexist; all simply because i have chosen one over another & have not cast aside my human/animal instincts for some sterile unnatural ideologies.....

At no stage above have i chosen a preferred object just because of the object, but because what the object offers relative to other options. If that is bigotry, sexism, racism, etc then the majority of humans are such, as well as nature. I think nature's billions of years of evolution has infinitely more depth of conviction & practice & proof, than a few minuscule decades of confused & angry feminists/socialists.

Just because a female receive less of something doesn't automatically mean its sexist. It is sexist to believe that women should receive the same or more than men just because their sex. Sexism isnt just in one direction.

If a man works 10 hrs at $10/hr producing he receives $100.
If a woman works 5 hours she should only receive $50.

This is simple logic & involves no sexism. Interchange the sexes & the result would not change.
However, many comments from socialists & feminists indicate that in tennis at least they would expect the woman to also receive $100, just for being a w o m a n. The inference is that women are special & deserve extra rewards not applicable to men.

The logic proves the socialist authors, & many feminists are sexist against men by expecting men to work 40% longer & a lot harder than women in tennis for the same reward.

Is it sexist to prefer to watch men at a sport?
If so, is it not sexist to prefer to watch women at a sport?

To claim sexism underlies much of life is ridiculous IMO. Just because a majority prefer watching 1 sex doesnt make it sexist. That is lazy & mere mud slinging. Besides people have the right to think whatever they wish, lets not forget that. All people have rights, not just the so called disadvantaged groups.

Sexism IMO occurs when a decision is made purely on sex. At no time has anyone proven sexism under that simple definition.

Rob, I think that men and women should both play 3 set games of tennis, this would remove any problem with the payment for work argument.

I did not say that people who prefer to watch men play tennis, are sexist. I also did not say that preference for something means you are bigoted against something else. I was discussing appreciating that men and women do things differently, but not necessarily better than the other sex.

If you cannot see that our society comes from a long history of racism, sexism and un-earnt privilege, then I can only assume that you have never read any history, or have chosen to be ignorant of history to suit your own ideology, or cognitive bias.

To acknowledge our history, is to address oppression and inequality in our current society. This is a good thing.

Ross, I too have a daughter and a grand daughter, and again agree with your points.

Feminism, for me, is about equal opportunity, and removing discrimination based on gender.

I also think that practicalities and biological facts, (not nonsense about women being overly emotional because of hormones and other such pseudo scientific rubbish), need to be taken into account, and seen as differences, not weaknesses.

There are physical differences between men and women, and these differences come into play with many sports, which is why we see segregation in sports. Its not discrimination to expect people to compete against those of equal strength and ability. After all seeing equals compete is what sport is about.

Its great to see that there are men, like yourself, that support equality for women and girls, and are not threatened by empowering females.

I think that the definition of feminism has been highjacked somewhat over the years, and this is sad.

That is all very sensible Judith. And I totally agree.

The heading for this article is

"Azarenka, Tsonga and the sexism that chokes women’s tennis"

A bit extreme perhaps?

Hi Judith, much of my letter was aimed at comments i've heard for ages & only some specifically at your comments, plus some general observations. I should have specified better, my apologies. ;) Also, pls excuse my less than adequate writing below as i am in a hurry to get on with other work.

3 or 5 sets is a difficult Q&A since some games r more exciting over 3 but others over 5. Though if women play against men then 3 would be the better choice.

Generally speaking: to achieve true fairness the sexes would have to play integrated otherwise the women would be riding on the coat tails of the men. Otherwise in the same vein i could set up my own league of me & my cat, & so demand to be paid what the top men & women get even though i am just an amateur level player. Where do we draw the line at what groups r allowed to participate for the SAME $? Why stop at just adding a women comp, why not also young & old, fat & thin, etc? The answer is simple. The paying public want to see the best, not the best under 18, or best fat person, or best amateur.

That is the reason lower grades r set up so that everyone can participate. But that doesnt give them the right to demand equal prize $ to the higher grades. The lower the grade the lower the $ irrespective of sex or any other categorisation. And (no offence intended) but women r inferior to men in most sports, not just 'different'. Each person is 'different' but the winner isnt decided on the best looking, or their age, or their style, etc. Its whomever wins the most points. And the fact is that women will rarely, if ever, beat any men in the top 100 let alone win any finals.

That is a fact of life that no amount of equal opportunity demands will ever change. Its not sexism to state the obvious.

However, if the paying public prefer to watch females play then females should be paid more. I don't mind one bit. However, i have no doubt if you took a poll that most people would prefer to see the best play, not one sex or the other.

Asking the public what they prefer to see is democracy & capitalism in action & ultimately the only opinion that matters. Its their $. Socialism/feminism has no right to interfere with the natural order of things for ideological & completely undemocratic reasons.

To top it all off, segregation should be construed as sexism by feminists if they held true to their doctrine since women are, after all, supposed to be the equal of men. If they argue segregation then they would be guilty of double standards, & of changing their 'rules' to suit the female sex at every turn.

I have studied history to the Sumerian times though not about sexism. Sexism was a trivial issue, if an issue at all. That is, survival was top priority throughout much of history, so i doubt sexism even existed as we know it today, but thats just my quick assessment. Women prepared the food the men hunted. Later men & women worked in the fields. I doubt sexism existed because there were no careers, & people accepted their roles as natural (that nature gave them) unlike today.

There were no unions, no social security, only a few professions & no careers for the masses till the early 1900's. So on balance i'd conclude there was no endemic or entrenched sexism, maybe only subtle at an individual level. People were primarily judged on their wealth not their sex, or maybe more accurately people were judged on everything, with sex being just one small part of it. So sexism in the past cannot be blamed on the plight of women in the past because sexism was only ever a small aspect of their lives. Women bore & raised children, cooked, & make clothes. While the men hunted or farmed, & went to war when required. That was it for the masses for thousands of yrs because it would be stupid to the nth degree to attempt to reverse the roles - males cant bear children, & women cant fight as well as men, nor do heavy labour like men, but they can do delicate work better than most men, etc etc. We can always find individual cases to claim this or that but they are irrelevant.

I recently spoke with my 86 yo mum who remembers life in E.Europe & how the aristocracy acted while the wretched poor eked out a living. My grandfather at the age of 12 became sole parent to his much younger siblings, with no $, no home, & no help from anyone managed to feed & clothe them working days & nights for yrs on farms, while saving a few dinars (copper coins) only to have them stolen time & again, but eventually bought a small house, & went on to help others lending them $.

Sexism was never an issue in those days. Though nationalism was rampant then, as association to religion waned in favour of race in the 1800 to mid-1900's. There was of course wife bashing, but that was not sexism but rather the poor taking their frustrations out on convenient people, be it the wife or the children. To me doing the wrong thing should not be separated into who it hurts, since everyone was hurt, not just women. Women also hurt their children, should we give that a name too?

Racism was sporadic in times past. People throughout the middle ages for eg associated themselves with (& fought for) a religion not their nationality or race. History is far too complex however to make specific statements covering all of history. Bias always existed, & always will, in humans AND animals. We prefer some things over others for various reasons. We r all biased against being hit by a bus. Every thought & feeling is based in part on bias.

People did what they were NATURALLY suited to, so without having thought much about it i cant say whether sexism existed at a societal level or just at an individual level along with all the other ills. People were expected to do their part which may be considered sexism by feminists but not by me (for example).

UN-earnt privilege? You'll need to provide specific examples.
Cheers :)

Rob, you seem to have some very strange ideas as to what sexism actually is. You also seem to have quite a narrow and unrealistic view of history. Your ideological bias seems to be blinding you to reality, both of today, and historically.

BTW please provide examples of your so called feminist doctrine, as a feminist, I have never come across any set of rules or doctrines that feminists are supposed to follow. Feminists are simply individuals, both male and female, that believe in equality of opportunity for women and girls, without discrimination, and I would add, in my own personal view as a feminist, I would also include all human beings. I believe in equality of opportunity for all humans, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age or beliefs.

My ideas about sexism, Judith, r largely based on what i hear feminists & socialists say or propose. When they say women r equal to men yet still want special favors i immediately hear hypocrisy.
My research into history was for curiosity & enjoyment rather than any political agenda, thus why i havent seen sexism mentioned in my travels...

Seems like some feminists want the same rights as men but with none of the responsibilities or hard work attached to those rights. In fact at times they want superior rights to men, eg, 'affirmative action' where women or minority groups r selected in favour over men just because of their sex or ethnicity. That is obviously hypocritical but its not questioned these days. Women must have equal rights & opportunities, no question there, but AA goes way beyond that into reverse discrimination against men. As we all know 2 wrongs dont make a right.

I prefer a mix of male to females in the work place. I like balance. But the choice must be based on individual circumstances not blanket laws or regulations that along with all the other multitude of regulations & bureaucracy (like OHS, & environment) escaping from govt these days is adding a huge cost onto production of goods & services. This is a fact since i am in the middle of it in my role.

While everyone has equal rights these days they also have responsibilities which i notice is blatantly missing when minority groups clamor for more freebees from society. Its like wanting the right to drive a car without having to pass the exam & pay the fees.

For example, the authors claim that low audience numbers proves sexism. A rather long bow to draw, & one that is blatantly not substantiated. (I wonder if their poor conclusions r deliberate to cause a debate...) The lack of numbers can just as easily be attributed to random personal preferences of the audience. Seems like the sexist claim is thrown around whenever women dont achieve as much as men. If women want higher audience numbers then they will have to work for it, just like the men, not just expect it to appear from thin air. Minorities these days have gone past demanding equal rights (a just cause) to demanding a free ride (unjust cause).

We have to be very careful not to hide behind labels of sexism, or racism, or whatever (ie play the victim card) as a convenient reason for any perceived 'gap'. The right to work simply means that you have the right to apply for any job you like without being restricted by class for eg, but it doesn't mean you have the right to force the employer to employ you over someone else they believe is more suitable.

Maybe I'm just looking at things form my own perspective, ie i consider everything & everyone on its or their merits not on what they are, hence why i dont see sexism as readily as other people. I dont believe sexism is any reason for lower viewer numbers. I watch both sexes & switch off if the game is boring no matter which sex is playing.

In fact i find mixed doubles fun to watch for the mix of talents.

I suspect feminists r struggling to find real sexism in these days of over regulation, & r just clutching at very vague straws to stay relevant as this article clearly shows with their unsubstantiated assertions & very poor logic.

I dont believe in feminism, because i believe everyone should have equal rights, not just one group or another. Feminism had a vital role decades ago but has become a victim of its own success. A good thing really. cheers

I think we tend to agree on the main point, of fairness is a must for all, etc. Maybe semantics r confusing things or our definition of 'fair' or 'equal'. Some people think it means a free ride. Eg some people think they r entitled to social security, but they arent, its a gift from the tax payer, not a right.

I definitely believe we need a much more specific definition of sexism, racism, etc than what i see in Wikipedia for instance. After all, everyone discriminates every single day, when we choose one thing over another. It doesnt make discrimination a bad thing.

Yes, discussion is a great thing. It promotes mutual understanding etc etc. I dont mind if people disagree with me, in fact i encourage it as an analyst since my job is to find the best solution no matter who thinks of it rather than implementing my solution just for the sake of it.

I understand you believe sexism is systemic, but i have not seen it, and there r laws to prevent discrimination, physical and verbal. So i dont think society needs to, or should do, any more.
I'll ask my sister, a doctor, next time i see her.

I think the definition of sexism is too easily applied & is being confused with someone merely recognising the basic natural attributes of a sex rather than what sexism should be about which is discrimination purely based on sex. Its a very easy mistake to make since they r very close or subtly different. When women comment about men being this or that i dont consider it sexist, i just determine if they r correct or not. But if i thought like a feminist i would be up in arms about it. To be 'sexist' you should prove 'intent' to discriminate. Therefore what Tsonga said had nothing to do with discriminating (sexism), & he had nothing to gain by it, it was just his opinion why women may not dominate. Being technically wrong or silly is not sexism.

If i choose a man over a woman to do manual labour like landscaping i dont consider that sexist, just common sense, but feminists may well consider it sexist. If i say females are typically more emotionally tender than males that may be considered sexist by both groups, but i dont, i may be wrong on technical grounds but it doesnt make it sexist. Of course, there will always be exceptions to most rules as people have their own personalities on top of basic gender qualities. But that doesnt mean you cant generalise, which seems a 'no no' these days.

I am acutely aware of what its like being a minority, as well as being on the receiving end of discrimination in many ways. But what people say vs what they do r 2 different things. People have the right be be racist, or sexist, or whatever they please IMO, as long as they dont break the law. To push beyond that is dangerously totalitarian/ George Orwell's 1985ish.

As for Tsonga, i am not sure his remarks r enough to be considered sexist, though when i read it i was surprised by it. Maybe in his own way (in his non native tongue & French mindset) he was trying to relieve any pressure on women due to the causes he mentioned. If so, that would not make his comment sexist, maybe just inept. Maybe some female players told him they lost because of that. Women are affected by it to varying degrees just like all people r affected by illness, or fatigue, etc to varying degrees. So his explanation is technically correct at least in suggesting a possible reason. It would take proper investigation however to determine the truth. People just assumed he was being negative, but remember he is French & as a son of Europeans myself i guarantee you they think & speak differently, ie, what sounds to us as a disparaging remark is to them a kind remark.

I can certainly associate with being misunderstood even by my family, let alone strangers. Its a real problem with most forms of communication that what we think is not reflected accurately in our words nor how our words r perceived. Only maths communicates 100% accurately IMO.

Im not excusing what he said, just looking at the possibilities (which is what i do as an analyst) rather than jumping to conclusions which the author certainly does on many fronts.

I think we should not use the words sexist, or racist, or whatever since they imply special rights to those groups otherwise why have those words at all. Everyone has the same basic rights, period, not just those groups, so 'discrimination' should be sufficient.

All the best
Rob

I disagree with your idea of what sexism is Rob. I also disagree that everyone has the same basic rights, clearly there are many cases where groups and individuals are not accorded the same rights as others, and are discriminated against because of ethnicity, gender, age etc, (all factors that the person has no control over).

I have experienced discrimination based on the fact that I am a woman, in employment, and other situations, not because I could not perform any required tasks to a required standard, or for any other reason than that the person discriminating against me, did not like women, and thought that they were less than men. I have also experienced discrimination due to my ethnicity.

Tsonga's remarks were designed to put down women tennis players, because they were women, nothing more, although you can make any number of excuses for his behaviour, IMO he is simply sexist, he also used the media to proclaim his sexist views to the world, and has been rightly called out on this.

Well said Rob!

Obviously this is an inherently subjective thing, but I for the life of me why anyone would prefer to watch (for example) Michael Chang vs Thomas Muster over Graf vs Navratilova. Different people are allowed to have different aesthetic tastes, so I'm bemused by all this "but men are better" nonsense. What does 'better' mean in the context of a tennis match?

Do we pick something arbitrary like fastest serve? Well, with all due respect to the guy Samuel Groth (#196 in the world) is unlikely to draw a crowd like Serena Williams, even if he can serve at 57 kmph faster. Shouldn't her rewards reflect that?