I really should listen to my good friend and work colleague who tells me not to watch Sunrise because it makes me angry. But as I was watching the tennis last night, that was the program on this morning when I flicked on the TV to see how long it had taken Nadal to defeat Cilic. It didn’t take long before my angryness came to the fore. I can’t remember which came first, but I think it was the suggestion that hospitals are right to ban Dads from filming the birth of their children, because in Kochie’s eyes “you just shouldn’t have cameras down there.” “Down there” is obviously code for vagina with your choice of demeaning adjective. Now I can think of a number of reasons for having a camera filming your vagina none of which include pr0n although that may also be a legitimate reason for filming your vagina, depending on your opinions of pr0n.
But it didn’t stop there. Then we got to the report on the tennis. A bit of a chat was had about the Nadal/Cilic match which was over in three sets and the Clijsters/Makarova match which was over in two. Then it was mentioned that the overall prize pool for the Australian Open was $25 million with $20K for getting through the first round and then so on until the winners both receive $2.2 million and the runners up $1.1 million. That was when Kochie made his second remark about women getting paid the same as men and asked who plays more sets. Mel shushed him and said “Not this again” or something along those lines and the sports reporter said “I’ll get you out of this Mel” and started talking about tennis again. Quite how this was Mel’s problem I’m not sure. Now I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that I actually agree with Kochie this time. Men and women tennis players shouldn’t get paid the same. Women should be earning more.
Here’s why. Women have to win in three sets. There is no second chance in the women’s game. If they lose two sets it’s all over. Lleyton Hewitt is known for coming back and winning in a tough fifth set despite going two sets to love, two sets to one, down. How many Grand Slams would he have won if they didn’t go best of five? [In non G/Ss everyone is best of three]. Therefore you can’t let your concentration slip in the women’s game. Have a bad set and lose and you have to come back in the next two or your are out. Men have the luxury of two bad sets before they have to get their act together.
Women are judged not only on their tennis skills but also on their appearance. Sometimes solely on their appearance despite their tennis skills. One male commentator texted fellow commentator Rennae Stubbs to say that he thought Kim Clijsters was pregnant because she was grumpy and her boobs looked bigger. So a woman can’t even have a bad day and wear a supportive bra without someone making a comment about her that has absolutely nothing to do with tennis. The fact that some women can play top level tennis while in the early stages of pregnancy means that they are worth more. [ftr Kim has said she is not pregnant]
Women can still play really long matches over three sets. Kuznetsova and Schiavone played for over four hours to complete three sets. I didn’t get to see all of the match but when it became apparent that the third set was going to go on for a while the Channel 7 coverage switched from the Sharapova/Petkovic match it had been televising to the Kuznetsova/Schiavone match for the duration. It was very entertaining tennis and worth every cent that those players are paid. Some men’s games go for five hours, but even that is pretty rare.
Women’s tennis has changed a lot in the past few years that I have been watching and I think in a large part due to the Williams sisters. I am not an expert on the history of women’s tennis, but as a reasonably avid watcher of tennis I think that the Williams sisters changed the game with their hard hitting and athleticism. The Women’s no.1s at the time – Martina Hingis and Lindsey Davenport were both masters of the well placed shot and Martina Hingis was very quick around the court and Lindsay had a great reach which allowed her to reach shots that other players may have missed. Then came Venus and Serena who hit the ball as hard as the men and quite simply overpowered some of their opponents. Venus was also extremely quick (at the time) for the women’s circuit. So the players had to change their game to keep up. Which they did. Which IMHO made womens tennis more interesting, faster paced and well worth equal footing with the men’s game. Which I have just realised I think of as the default for measuring these things. Hmmm.
Maybe it is time for Kochie to go the way of the other dinosaurs?
[SotBO: some of this was written firmly tongue in check, some not]
Categories: arts & entertainment, gender & feminism, media
Wonder Woman movie marketing machine tied up in knots 
2016 Hoydens: Debbie Reynolds and Carrie Fisher 
Quick Link: the 2014 Ernies are in 
Signal Boost: Wonder Women! 
Hoyden About Town 
Every time Sunrise even starts to get on to some women/men topic I have to quickly switch before I hear what ever comes out of Kochie’s mouth. He is condescending to the extreme. I remember once watching, and I can’t remember what they were talking about, but it was Nat, Kochie and the sport guy. Kochie and the sports guys were talking, and you would see Nat trying to get a word in, but kept getting shut down by the loud obnoxious bozos. I find myself watching the Today Show, not because it’s that much better, but at least Karl seems a little less deliberate and smug with his douchbaggery.
The Women’s no.1s at the time – Martina Hingis and Lindsey Davenport were both masters of the well placed shot and Martina Hingis was very quick around the court and Lindsay had a great reach which allowed her to reach shots that other players may have missed.
This was why I used to prefer women’s tennis (well I still do, because this aspect isn’t gone, but it always seemed more tactical than the men’s).
Kochie is seriously the worlds biggest idiot.
Also, we don’t pay athletes on an hourly rate. Otherwise, sprinters would get 50 cents and marathon runners would get millions.
And male and female tennis players train for the same amount of time; they just play a slightly different game.
Everybody’s points above about how athletic remuneration is not based on length of performance in any other discipline fully agreed.
It could be, however, interesting to actually have a debate about the number of sets that women play. Look at any other elite sport and listen to the coaches rhapsodising about the endurance/stamina of women athletes. Does anybody seriously think that women would be unable to play best of 5 sets if the rules were changed?
Of course they could. So why don’t they, tennis administrators? Hmm?
I would have thought stronger arguments against dads filming the birth of their own child would be…
a) you’d get in the bloody way
b) if you’re going to be there it would presumably be better to spend less time fiddling around with camera buttons and more time supporting your partner
c) you’d get in the WAY
etc.
Not sure why people so obsessively film some things anyway, it’s better to enjoy your existence than get photographic documentation of every single significant and insignificant moments in that previously mentioned existence.
I can’t stand Kochie. Whenever he opens his mouth I know it is probably going to be offensive in some fashion. I wish he would just stick to finance. I don’t mind him as finance guy, he actually has some good advice to offer. However someone seems to think he’s an excellent morning host, and you can’t help but feel sorry for his coworkers having to put up with him.
I’m a little bit iffy about the videoing the delivery thing. I mean, shouldn’t they be assisting their spouse or something, rather than intently peering into the lens of their camera?
I can’t believe the thing David Koch says most of the time. He’s like the embarrassing family member you wish you could mute.
It is nice to see a Jewish face on Oz tv, but he’s probably an embarrassment to my Hebrew friends out there.
As for the tennis, let the market decide. Sometimes value is a hydraheaded beast that is hard to quantify for those, especially for those who don’t pay out the moolah.
You don’t have to pay a great deal of attention to the man to know that Kochie is as Catholic as they come, @Happylittlevegemite. You’re developing a non-perspicacious track record around here.
Link.
@tigtog
My apologies.
I have a very rare for of PDDNOS. It sometimes comes across that I am being argumentative, when I genuinely asking a question.
Sometimes I miss letters in words and whole words (though never misspell). The problem is, I can never see the missing letters, no matter how hard I try.
Often people assume I’m either a child or (often) Indian ???
I also can not read a clock or tell left from right.
So, I meant no offence when I didn’t see your correlations on a previous post, sometimes there are things others see that I can not and sometimes I see things in a unique way.
On the subject of David Koch, I know several times he has offended the Jewish community, but I would bet my cabbage patch bacha that Kochie has some Hebrew blood, regardless of his cultural inclinations.
@Happylittlevegemite,
I have an appreciation for the challenges faced by those with PDDNOS, but because I’m intimately familiar with it, I also do not take it as a blanket pass in matters of socialisation generally, and especially not just on a bald assertion. I hope you appreciate that there are malfeasants on the internet who often claim to have conditions that they do not actually have, for purposes of their own. I hope that you are not such a person, but I don’t know that for sure now, do I?
I’m really curious as to why you are so sure about that. ‘Koch’ is an occupational Germanic surname, which translates as ‘cook’. Of the many professions which were coopted by the State to issue occupational European surnames to their minority Jewish populations a few centuries ago (not a part of the Jewish cultural tradition, which is purely patronymic) , ‘Koch’ was hardly a common one, because of the kosher dietary taboos which meant that Jews simply did not apply for positions as cooks for Gentiles (because it would have meant dealing with forbidden foods). ‘Koch’ in Germanic nations and amongst their emigrants is almost purely a Christian surname. So what makes you think that Kochie is some exception to this pattern?
Thank you for your reply tigtog, I appreciate the time is late where you are and is earlier here in.
I’m not sure why anyone would want to subject themselves to being belittled and have their opinions prejudiced for being different, but I’m sure you have all sorts around here.
I know Jewish people who clai that Koshie is one of them, so I always take their so called “jewdar” as being r ght .
I understand that Koch is no more Jewish in nature than Hoffman, Goldsmith, Tannenbaum or Bergstein. Most Germanic originated names bare homogeneity to Yiddish adopted ones.
I just think he may have Hebraic DNA, let’s called it a hunch. I could be right/wrong until the blood test comes bac .
I hope no one thought i was being racist, because that would deeply sadden me. I decided to see if I could find out either way if Kochie had confirmed yay or nay, but found an abhorrent racist website where some one using Happylittlevegemite as their non de plume called him a “Jewish ambulance chaser”.
Not very behaviour.
I would like to change my moniker to happylittlemonkey as not to be associated with the.
It’s ironic though because I am very sad, people avoid me.
It’s called trolling. They do it because they don’t take any of it seriously except the attempt to derail discussion amongst people they have decided shouldn’t be so loud about stuff.
Actually, you don’t. Those surnames have distinct occupational and/or regional associations with known Jewish populations in Germany/Austria/Holland etc. Koch has none of those associations, because Jewish men did not work as cooks for Gentiles because that would have shattered a whole pile of kosher rules. So why would any official give a Jew the surname ‘Cook’? Did you even click on the link in my previous post?
In any case, since Jewishness is a heritage that Kochie himself does not claim, what’s the point of bringing it up? Especially in a conspiracy theory climate where secret Jews are supposedly controlling the media? I don’t believe that, but lots of people do. Perhaps you should ask yourself why people like to believe such things with no evidence.
Anyway, enough derailing of this thread.