Banned wagon
A weekly survey of the things our rulers want to prohibit
WITH stock markets collapsing around her, taking our pensions with them, one might imagine that the Trade and Industry Secretary and Minister for Women Patricia Hewitt would have better things to do than to write to the All England Club moaning that this year's ladies' champion will receive only £486,000 compared with 1525,000 for the men's champion. Never mind that women play only three sets, and that as a result of their short, easy matches many top women players are able to boost their prize money by competing in the doubles, too. thus out-earning the leading men. Never mind how many people switch off when Irina Snortilova starts baseline-slogging with Louisiana Puppyfat; equal pay for women must prevail, snorts Hewitt, hinting that if the All England Club isn't going to raise women's prize money voluntarily, legislation may follow.
The government has already picked on male sporting events. Two years ago it added an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act which obliges the organisers of men's sporting competitions to organise a parallel women's competition unless they can prove that there is insufficient demand. In other words, if you are a boxing promoter and along comes a bevy of women demanding the right to a contest of their own, you will be forced to provide one. Not only that; you will then receive a letter from Ms Hewitt demanding that the winner be paid the same as Lennox Lewis.
If feminists were consistent, it would not be equal pay they demanded, but the right to compete with the men. Given that women can fight fires alongside men, it is absurd that Patricia Hewitt cannot play Lleyton Hewitt at Wimbledon. But for some reason the equal-pay lobby never advances this argument. The truth is that sisters-in-arms are more than happy to see discrimination, as long as it
is to their benefit. Ross Clark
Previous page
