MavericStephenc

ok here it goes.

I'm writing an essay fir my comp. class.(trying)

The essay is on "Purse Snatching" written by Donna Lopiano, in the article she argues that woman in sports are not paid what their male counterparts are due to sexism. My professor wants us to argue her view by making the statement that economics and not sexism can explain the salary disparity between male and female athletes.

where I'm stuck:
I'm getting a bit of a mental block and I need some help guys!

heres my paragraph thus far

Women who reveal their bodies on the field may garner more endorsements and better pay. However, this is not inherently sexist, because male athletes who do the same receive similar treatment. Ms. Lopiano posits "The media blatently suggests that there athletes' physical appearance is more important and of greater interest than their athletic achievements." (Lopiano1)Upon her victory, Brandi Chastain rips off her jersey. Athletisism (sp) is sexy, and in a capitolist society sex sells. The truth is that an athletes physical apperance is of upmost importance. We as consumers hold their bodies to a standard Zuess would be impressed with. For some reason it is more socially acceptible for a male athlete to show athletic dominance by tearing off a jersey, whereas when a woman reveals her body it is viewed as taboo. Both male and female athletes reap benifits from physical exposure.

what do you guys think?

__________________
That kind of attitude is SHIT. People with that kind of complacent outlook on law and government are the bane of this country's existence. -Thesquidd

Boycott Berkeley and code pink

ronmcdon

Well economics is more or less supply and demand.

Keep it simple.

What I would do is:

Find a sport(s) in the US (or some other part of the world) where both men & women play.
Basketball is one such sport.
Maybe soccer.
Maybe boxing.

Compare the average salaries.
Maybe try to compare how many ppl view the finals of 'such & such' sport (demand).
Try to bull-shit your way into how there's a correlation between demand & income.

Idk about your first paragraph.
It seems like it's a bit too complicated.
I also think you'd have a difficult time proving (that in sports),
women do better financially via exposing their body, vs. doing well in the sport they compete.

Good luck,
as much as I don't mind writing most papers, this is one I would absolutely dread writing.

MavericStephenc

yeah I'm finally getting it going. However the main point I need to present is that its in not exactly sexism, but economics doing that to female athletes. (I'm dreading this paper too.)

Thank you for your input and I will update further soon.

__________________
That kind of attitude is SHIT. People with that kind of complacent outlook on law and government are the bane of this country's existence. -Thesquidd

Boycott Berkeley and code pink

Mr. H

if your arguing that its economics as opposed to sexism i would think it would be easy. Look at how much professional athletes bring in financially. Way more people watch/attend the games of the NBA than the WNBA. If more people are paying to see men play sports(in my personal opinion its because the male version is more interesting to watch, especially basketball) then the male althletes earn more. not because they are male but because they bring in more money for their bosses.

MavericStephenc

I just turned in the paper. heres how it turned out:

In the past women were traditionally excluded from sports, today they have "leagues of their own". In Ms.Lopianos' "Purse Snatching" , Ms. Lopiano complains that although women participate in sports; because of sexism they are not paid what their male counterparts earn. Although Ms. Lopiano complains about sexism, perhaps economics is another explanation as to the salary disparity.
Male athletes get paid more than female athletes because the market has been established."The WNBA players had trouble negotiating minimum salary guarantees."(Lopiano1) Obvious signs of male dominance in athletics can be observed in daily life. Given the strength of the male athletic market. Marketing plays a huge role in the prominence of male dominated sports. For example, by walking into any sports memorabilia store, the consumer is swarmed by jerseys flaunting the names of prominent sports figures such as Kevin Garnett, Tom Brady, and Kevin Youkilis. All of whom are male. Merchandise featuring female athletes is less common, so, it's easy to see why female athletes are paid considerably less than their male counterparts from a merchandising standpoint. Ticket sales play a large role in sustaining this reality. Due in large part to the average attendance per game. The number of spectators for a WNBA game averages at 10,000 while the NBA averages at 17,000. The disparity of ticket pricing between male and female professional sports , bolstered by fan attendance, is enormous.
In the 1999 World Cup Soccer match "The 1999 female World Cup Soccer champs [received] $12,500... compared to the approximate $400,000 [received] by the male world cup champs."(Lopiano2) A public outcry ensued, and generated additional public interest in the sport. Now woman are paid nearly four times that amount. Additional viewership increased earnings which gave the teams the economic backing to better pay their athletes.
Women who reveal their bodies on the field may garner more endorsements and better pay. However, this is not inherently sexist, because male athletes who do the same receive similar treatment. Ms. Lopiano posits "The media blatantly suggests that these athletes' physical appearance is more important and of greater interest than their athletic achievements." (Lopiano3)Upon her victory, Brandi Chastain rips off her jersey flaunting a sports bra, and considerable muscle. Athleticism is sexy, and in a capitalist society sex sells. The truth is that an athlete's physical appearance is of upmost importance. We as consumers hold their bodies to a standard Zeus himself would be impressed with. For some reason it is more socially acceptable for a male athlete to show athletic dominance by tearing off a jersey, whereas when a woman reveals her body it is viewed as taboo. Both male and female athletes reap benefits from physical exposure.
In conclusion, female athletes suffer lesser pay and public exposure primarily do to economics rather than sexist views. There is already and established marketplace, and fan base for male oriented sports. One way for female athletes to garner better pay is to increase viewership of their sport. The final way to achieve this goal is through the physical expression of their dominance, and prowess in their profession. All of these ideas support the fact that female athletes are paid less for economic reasons.




if anyone care lemme know what you think

__________________
That kind of attitude is SHIT. People with that kind of complacent outlook on law and government are the bane of this country's existence. -Thesquidd

Boycott Berkeley and code pink