PDA

View Full Version : Wimbledon to give equal prize money



Conaldinho
23-02-2007, 12:20 AM
The Wimbledon Championships will offer women and men equal prize money for the first time at this year's tournament.
The announcement by the All England Club brings the tournament into line with other Grand Slams following criticism from officials and players.

Wimbledon joins the United States and Australia in paying equal money across the board, from the champions down to the first-round losers in all events.

The French Open only offers the same cheque to the champions.

Roger Federer, the 2006 men's champion, earned £655,000 while Amelie Mauresmo took home £625,000 for winning the women's title.

The All England Club had previously defended the difference by saying that women had best-of-three-set matches while the men had best-of-five contests.

I dont really agree with it tbh, im not being sexist or anything but the men play best of 5 sets while for the women its only 3 sets so why should they be the same, there was only 30k diference in it and I thought that was quite fair. The men do more work on the court but get paid the same, if it was a normal business job then the person doing more would get more.
Thats my opinion anyway and like I said im not being sexist, if it was the other way aound with women playing 5 sets I would feel the same way

9nufc9
23-02-2007, 01:28 AM
Exactly Con, they want equal play, they need to play 5 sets.

smithy
23-02-2007, 12:31 PM
Three or four years ago I would of agreed with the two of you , but now I'm pleased Wimbledon have made it equal pay , the quality you get it the women's game now is a lot higher. I think they do now deserve to be on level pegging with the guys.

Conaldinho
23-02-2007, 08:50 PM
But they dont do the same amount of work...

9nufc9
23-02-2007, 09:35 PM
The quality has improved, i definately agree there. But how can they get equal pay when one of their matches last about 3 hours at most while a men's match can go from 5 to 6 hours?

twmcat
23-02-2007, 10:06 PM
Just reduce the men's games to 3 sets too ,;)

Johaldo8
23-02-2007, 11:51 PM
Three or four years ago I would of agreed with the two of you , but now I'm pleased Wimbledon have made it equal pay , the quality you get it the women's game now is a lot higher. I think they do now deserve to be on level pegging with the guys.

Can you explain that comment please.

I mean, the quality of men's tennis is far superior to women's, no question. They're faster, fitter, more agile, more stamina, more movement, more power...so I'm curious to know your explanation.

marcofoo
25-02-2007, 07:55 PM
It means the quality of womens tennis is higher.

I reckon it should be equal.

To be fair if women went 5 sets it'd just turn to rubbish... they'd tire easily etc.

This is not their fault... it's just the way it is.

Agent Smith
25-02-2007, 08:02 PM
There used to be 5 sets in women's game, in year-end Championships
(I forgot what years it was though - maybe 5 or 10 years ago).
The players were getting tired
(mind you - only the best players in the world qualify to the YEC)
and the matches turned to rubbish at the end.
So they went back to 3 sets.
A woman's body is weaker and is doing the same job in 3 sets
as the man's body in 5, so the comparison is not fair IMO.

Forev
25-02-2007, 09:14 PM
So, the women get the same pay for less work? Fair....

The only way this can be justified is if they play naked, or in skimpier clothing. Or why not just put a strippers pole to the side of the court and they can dance to cool down while men throw water over them.

Agent Smith
25-02-2007, 09:36 PM
Another thing is that female tennis players
bring just as many spectators to the courts as the men do.
If there's equal interest in the games,
and equal ticket prices, why not equal pay?
After all the tennis players get paid from the spectator's pockets,
and those do come to women's games and pay for the tickets
- and the prices are the same for the men's and women's games.

Forev
26-02-2007, 04:18 PM
:lol: :lol: Oh my.....

J-Axe
26-02-2007, 04:26 PM
I see him as an attention seeker myself.

Forev
26-02-2007, 06:10 PM
Mrs. Steely said no to going back to the kitchen.

http://www2.b3ta.com/host/creative/9936/1172113518.jpg

She should have known better. Bless.

O Dogg
26-02-2007, 09:00 PM
Lads come on, your crossing that line again.
Might be fun for you guys, but we can't allow things like that to be posted on the forum.

Let's try and keep this place friendly eh? There are women on the website also so show a little respect please.

Ameer
28-02-2007, 10:17 AM
Personally I think itís another example of PC going crazy, as most people have said women play less sets, hence to less work so they should get paid and I agree with that.

As for spectators Iím pretty sure the menís games still brings in bigger crowds.

And if they do get tired playing 5 sets maybe they need to train harder and do more stamina building exercises.

Over all its sexism towards men and the funny thing is that it happens a lot but no one seems to be the least bit aggrieved about it.

J-Axe
28-02-2007, 12:17 PM
So who cares if Women are getting equal pay? I'd just be satisfied that I was enjoying my Sport, having a career with it and earning great money for it. I wouldn't complain because a female athlete was earning the same.

It's just another reason for somebody to use the word sexism & debate pointless stuff.

Personally, I don't care. If Women could play 5 sets at their highest level, then I'm sure that'd be in order, but they can't match Men physically and that is not their fault. They put just as much effort & time into the Sport on a different scale.

Ameer
28-02-2007, 12:21 PM
So who cares if Women are getting equal pay? I'd just be satisfied that I was enjoying my Sport, having a career with it and earning great money for it. I wouldn't complain because a female athlete was earning the same.

It's just another reason for somebody to use the word sexism & debate pointless stuff.

Personally, I don't care. If Women could play 5 sets at their highest level, then I'm sure that'd be in order, but they can't match Men physically and that is not their fault. They put just as much effort & time into the Sport on a different scale.

So you dont see this as sexism, and its not pointless at all, if you do less work you paid less end of. Its discrimination agaisnt men.

J-Axe
28-02-2007, 12:26 PM
I tell you what, I'm totally glad that I'm not a female. We get a much easier life than them.

But you want to debate, criticise & call sexism just because they get paid good money in a Sport?

As I said, if I were Federer I'd be proud of myself, happy to enjoy my career & happy to earn the great money that I do. And I admire some of the quality of the Women's game (even though I'm not a tennis fan) and to see them be classed as lower because they aren't physically as good, is quite petty.

Ameer
28-02-2007, 12:41 PM
I tell you what, I'm totally glad that I'm not a female. We get a much easier life than them.

But you want to debate, criticise & call sexism just because they get paid good money in a Sport?

As I said, if I were Federer I'd be proud of myself, happy to enjoy my career & happy to earn the great money that I do. And I admire some of the quality of the Women's game (even though I'm not a tennis fan) and to see them be classed as lower because they aren't physically as good, is quite petty.

Of course if you were Federer you would be happy getting the money. But thatís the whole point if a woman is less physically able to do the same job why should they get paid the same.

Its PC gone mad

If you have a women scaffold and she is only able to contract half a scaffolding and work three hours of the day...but the guy scaffold can construct the whole thing and works 5-6 hours....who do you think should be paid more?

J-Axe
28-02-2007, 12:48 PM
I all honesty, I don't care.

If Women were being paid more than me for doing less of a job I wouldn't moan about it. Just take care of yourself & if you are earning the right money for the job then that's all that matters.

And I'm sure the Male tennis players feel the same way. Lets see how many Male tennis players complain about it.

Ameer
28-02-2007, 01:09 PM
I all honesty, I don't care.

If Women were being paid more than me for doing less of a job I wouldn't moan about it. Just take care of yourself & if you are earning the right money for the job then that's all that matters.

And I'm sure the Male tennis players feel the same way. Lets see how many Male tennis players complain about it.

You they wonít because they donít want to be seen as non pc, can you really see some like Roddick coming out and saying ďno they should not be paid the sameĒ, the controversy would be so intense for him, and the only one that has spoken out about it is Pat Cash I think

J-Axe
28-02-2007, 01:28 PM
Why are your "won't"s & "don't"s appearing as 'won?' and 'don?'? :|

Ameer
28-02-2007, 02:15 PM
^^^ i dont know axey, it appears fine on my screen

marcofoo
28-02-2007, 02:55 PM
Ameer u r talking rubbish.

They r born as women... less physical than men. I'd say a 3 to 5 ratio is about right... they still put in the same effort.

PC gone mad.... do u even know what that means?

O Dogg
28-02-2007, 02:57 PM
The only thing I have to say is that per hour, women are actually earning more money than men now. So it is not equal.

You could say it is sexist that Men have to play 5 sets instead of 3, however nobody would really want to see that decreased.

But at the end of the day, I dont really think it makes a difference how much women earn compared to men. Good on them if they can get it!

What does pee me off is all this PC stuff that goes on. Decisions being made due to Political Correctness instead of using common sense.

Ameer
28-02-2007, 03:00 PM
Ameer u r talking rubbish.

They r born as women... less physical than men. I'd say a 3 to 5 ratio is about right... they still put in the same effort.

PC gone mad.... do u even know what that means?

How am i talking rubbish, well if you think a 3 to5 ratio is fine shouldnt the earning reflect a 3 to 5 ratio as well

and yes i do know what PC gone mad means, and this is a prime example of it.

Ameer
28-02-2007, 03:01 PM
The only thing I have to say is that per hour, women are actually earning more money than men now. So it is not equal.

You could say it is sexist that Men have to play 5 sets instead of 3, however nobody would really want to see that decreased.

But at the end of the day, I dont really think it makes a difference how much women earn compared to men. Good on them if they can get it!

What does pee me off is all this PC stuff that goes on. Decisions being made due to Political Correctness instead of using common sense.

Fair play to them for getting it, but this is nothing to do with common sense its all to with being political correct.

marcofoo
28-02-2007, 03:02 PM
Yeah I agree. But I don't think this decision has anything to do with that.

As for pay/hour... think of all the training they put in, that is the work... which I imagine is pretty equal.

The more hours they get in a tournament the better... i.e. the further they get.

Any1 who disagrees is living in the olden days and needs to wake up.

P.S. Slavery is now illegal.

marcofoo
28-02-2007, 03:02 PM
Yeah I agree. But I don't think this decision has anything to do with that.

As for pay/hour... think of all the training they put in, that is the work... which I imagine is pretty equal.

The more hours they get in a tournament the better... i.e. the further they get.

Any1 who disagrees is living in the olden days and needs to wake up.

P.S. Slavery is now illegal.

That agreement was with O Dogg by the way.

Ameer
28-02-2007, 03:23 PM
Yeah I agree. But I don't think this decision has anything to do with that.

As for pay/hour... think of all the training they put in, that is the work... which I imagine is pretty equal.

The more hours they get in a tournament the better... i.e. the further they get.

Any1 who disagrees is living in the olden days and needs to wake up.

P.S. Slavery is now illegal.

What and the guys donít put the same if not more training, and it has nothing to with olden days, no one (and especially not me) is saying that women shouldnít be paid the same, but they have to do the same work.

If the decision was not because of PC what else was it.

marcofoo
28-02-2007, 03:29 PM
It's just about being fair.

They r both competing to be the best male or female in the world.


Competing against the rest of the men or women in the world. This is an EQUAL contest, therefore pay should be equal.


It is not sex vs sex.

Ameer
28-02-2007, 03:35 PM
It's just about being fair.

They r both competing to be the best male or female in the world.


Competing against the rest of the men or women in the world. This is an EQUAL contest, therefore pay should be equal.


It is not sex vs sex.

So youíre saying the fact that the guys do more work, have more exciting matches, bring in larger crowds as well as train harder then the females means nothing

marcofoo
28-02-2007, 03:42 PM
Both the men and women will train to their maximum... u make out as though the women r being lazy.

Excitement has nothing to do with it. That is a random factor.

If they bring in larger crouds (something I know nothing about) then perhaps they should get more prize money...

... that is the only factor I agree with.

Ameer
28-02-2007, 03:44 PM
Both the men and women will train to their maximum... u make out as though the women r being lazy.

Excitement has nothing to do with it. That is a random factor.

If they bring in larger crouds (something I know nothing about) then perhaps they should get more prize money...

... that is the only factor I agree with.

Im sorry if it came across as me saying the women are being lazy, but you have to train harder to 5 sets then you 3 its common sense and if you coming up against a machine like federer you gonna have to train even harder.

marcofoo
28-02-2007, 03:49 PM
Both the men and women will train to their maximum... u make out as though the women r being lazy.

Excitement has nothing to do with it. That is a random factor.

If they bring in larger crouds (something I know nothing about) then perhaps they should get more prize money...

... that is the only factor I agree with.

Im sorry if it came across as me saying the women are being lazy, but you have to train harder to 5 sets then you 3 its common sense and if you coming up against a machine like federer you gonna have to train even harder.

True but the same could be said of the top women in the game.

The way life is, women just can't compete physically with men and there need to be allowances for this. They r still trying their hardest. It's the same in any sport.

Tennis is one of the only sports where interest in both sexes is near equal.

I would agree with your views on many other sports, but not tennis.

Agent Smith
28-02-2007, 04:22 PM
Here's something I'd like you to have a look at:

Wimbledon 2006 - Semi Finals:

Roger Federer bt. Jonas Bjorkman in 3 sets
- the match lasted 1h 17 minutes.
Amelie Mauresmo bt. Maria Sharapova in 3 sets
- the match lasted 2h 13 minutes.

Prizemoney for the semis:
Men: 327.500
Ladies: 303.000

Should Mauresmo have been paid more or less than Federer then?
Neither - because in tennis it's not about being paid per hour.
Men can win their matches in 3 sets too.
It's about the effort put, and the result.
And women put the same effort during 3 sets as the men during 5.
The same - when women win in 2 sets,
it's the same effort when the men win in 3.
We're physically weaker, no matter how hard we train,
we'll never be as strong as men, simply because we're women.
But I can assure you we put the same effort in the sport as the men do.

marcofoo
28-02-2007, 04:25 PM
Exactly Smith.

J-Axe
28-02-2007, 04:28 PM
But I can assure you we put the same effort in the sport as the men do.

The most important point in it all.

J-Axe
01-03-2007, 05:33 PM
See, I'd even pay good money to see West Ham before Accrington Stanley.

But I'd certainly pay more money to see an Anna Kournikova or Maria Sharapova game. :)

Agent Smith
01-03-2007, 05:52 PM
Yes, Mauresmo, Henin-Hardenne and the Williams sisters are very appealling.
That's why they win everything.

Steely, have you seen any women's games?
They certainly don't lack talent, that I am sure of.

And please explain how is 1h 17 minutes more than 2h 13 minutes :)

Conaldinho
01-03-2007, 07:07 PM
Federer killed Bjorkman in that game though, he barely gave him a point in the whole game.
There were other mens games like Nadal v that french guy - Mathieu i think, that went on for something like 5 hours, there are exceptions but overall the men play for longer than the women

marcofoo
01-03-2007, 07:50 PM
See, I'd even pay good money to see West Ham before Accrington Stanley.

But I'd certainly pay more money to see an Anna Kournikova or Maria Sharapova game. :)

yes but this is my point. they cant earn the same on the basis they look good in a skirt. effort is not good enough at the end of the day. they lack talent and the only appeal they have is sex appeal

Name one sport where interest in male and female as well as talent are equal.

It doesn't happen because women r not physically as strong as men.

marcofoo
01-03-2007, 08:26 PM
Tennis.

marcofoo
01-03-2007, 08:57 PM
My point is they will never be able to compete with men, nor will interest be the same.

That's because of the way women r born... not their fault.

But if a competetion is shared like Wimbledon is... i.e tv coverage etc, then there is no reason y prize money should not be the same.

twmcat
01-03-2007, 11:36 PM
I once went to a women's footy game for the first time, and asked the lovely female who introduced me to the game:
"How many minutes do they play each half - it's not 45 is it?"

I got quite an annoyed response.

She was shocked that I felt that women might not be able to play a game the same length of time as men.
So why can't they play the same number of tennis sets as men?

Women footballers receive far less earnings then men for playing the same 90 minute game. So I don't see why women tennis players expect the same earnings for playing less.

Johaldo8
09-03-2007, 11:29 PM
I once went to a women's footy game for the first time, and asked the lovely female who introduced me to the game:
"How many minutes do they play each half - it's not 45 is it?"

I got quite an annoyed response.

She was shocked that I felt that women might not be able to play a game the same length of time as men.
So why can't they play the same number of tennis sets as men?

Women footballers receive far less earnings then men for playing the same 90 minute game. So I don't see why women tennis players expect the same earnings for playing less.

Just reading through this thread, and this is a brilliant point. Potentially wins the argument type of point.

So come on then, the "equal pay for women" brigade, let's hear your answers to that...

Agent Smith
10-03-2007, 12:57 PM
I feel like I'm being bullied ,;) j/k

Sorry fellas, but your nail on head is irrelevant.
What have football and tennis got in common?
Yes, female footballers earn a few hundred times less than male footballers,
but using that as an excuse not to give female and male tennis players equal prize money?
Ridiculous.

Sadly women's football is nowhere near as popular as women's tennis.
I can watch women's tennis on tv nearly every week, and it's been like that for many years now
while women's football is starting to appear slowly on tv - and only big tournaments
- you can only dream about regular league games
while women's tennis is on, all year long.
If nobody was watching women's tennis, the tv stations wouldn't have waisted the air time on it.
Also the tickets to women's tennis matches are at least 10 times more expensive
than those to the women's football games.

That is because women's football is far behind other women's sports
when it comes to advertising it.
That is also because plenty of people still think football is a men's game
and are ok with the fact that women play it as a "hobby".
Female footballers have regular jobs
and have to find time and strength to work, train, play football
and raise children too, if they have them.
That is pathetic and needs to be changed.
It will take a long, long time before female footballers start earning proper money though
- at least so they don't have to work, and can focus on football only.

But because of that, female tennis players should earn less than male players?
What has one got to do with another?
I find comparing the two sports ridiculous.
We are talking here about equalising prize money for female and male TENNIS PLAYERS,
not for female tennis players and female footballers.

And using the fact that tennis players are attractive,
as an excuse not to give them the equal prize money is just laughable.
So they should wear track suits and wigs so their tennis skills can be noticed?
And show me a court where Andy Roddick, Rafael Nadal or Roger Federer play
and it's not filled with women drooling over them.
It works both ways.
Some people watch tennis for tennis, others watch it for other reasons.
Regardless the players' gender or attractiveness (is that an English word? ,;) lol).

You must understand that tennis is not a game you play per hour.
If that was the case, why don't they pay the tennis players
a certain amount of money per set/game/minute etc.?
Don't forget it's only major tournaments where men have to play the best of 5 sets
- they play the best of 3 in all other tourneys, just like women.

Anyway I've said what I had to say.
Fortunatelly Wimbledon and other tournaments' directors have more common sense
than some of the posters on this forum who shared their opinion in this thread ,8)

And the thread also proves how people can have opinions
on subjects they have no clue about.
I wonder how many of you watch women's tennis
(I know Conner watches some
and twmcat watches none, but who else?).
And I'm talking about real beautiful tennis
- players like Henin-Hardenne, Mauresmo and other top 20-ers,
and not just those with pretty faces or legs.

I know I am not going to convince anyone here,
that what they did in Wimbledon is right,
that's not even my goal,
but at least when you post something here,
please make sure it's relevant to the topic.
I don't see that nail on head anywhere :)

twmcat
10-03-2007, 09:06 PM
Don't forget it's only major tournaments where men have to play the best of 5 sets
- they play the best of 3 in all other tourneys, just like women.
So, why do men have to play more sets in major tournaments?
And, only get the same earnings as women in those?
Would people who watch tennis stop watching Wimbledon if men only had to play 3 sets?

Agent Smith
10-03-2007, 09:28 PM
Ask Wimbledon that - I don't know.
I couldn't care less if men were playing the best of 3.
But I am sure that even if they did, there would still be complaints
from people who think tennis is played per hour,
that their sets are longer than women's (which is absolutelly not the case
- a set can last 40 minutes as well as 1.5h - both at men's and women's games)
and they should earn more anyway :roll:

twmcat
10-03-2007, 10:44 PM
Ask Wimbledon that - I don't know.
I couldn't care less if men were playing the best of 3.
But I am sure that even if they did, there would still be complaints
from people who think tennis is played per hour,
that their sets are longer than women's (which is absolutelly not the case
- a set can last 40 minutes as well as 1.5h - both at men's and women's games)
and they should earn more anyway :roll:
But they should still play the same number of sets :wink:

Johaldo8
10-03-2007, 11:47 PM
Agent, your argument is very weak.

If men can play 5 sets with each other, why can't women? It's not like we're asking women to play men is it? A man would have to go to battle with another man for potentially 5 sets, whereas as a woman has to battle it out with another woman for only 3 sets. From a spectator point of view, not only are they watcing a lower quality match with women, they are also watching fewer sets! So surely they arent' deserving of the same money?

Agent Smith
11-03-2007, 12:02 AM
From a spectator point of view, I know that I am paying loads of money
to see a match which can last 40 minutes as well as 3 hours
- whether men or women play.
Men's match can last 1h and women's can last 3h
as well as the other way around.
So that's the pain about being a tennis fan.
You never know how long you'll be there on the court.

And how are women's matches a lower quality?
I'm a big tennis fan, I watch a lot of tennis on tv
and I go to WTA, ATP and Grand Slam tournaments,
and I see the same quality
whether men or women play.

Johaldo8
11-03-2007, 01:31 AM
From a spectator point of view, I know that I am paying loads of money
to see a match which can last 40 minutes as well as 3 hours
- whether men or women play.
Men's match can last 1h and women's can last 3h
as well as the other way around.
So that's the pain about being a tennis fan.
You never know how long you'll be there on the court.

And how are women's matches a lower quality?
I'm a big tennis fan, I watch a lot of tennis on tv
and I go to WTA, ATP and Grand Slam tournaments,
and I see the same quality
whether men or women play.

Firstly, a men's game lasts much longer than a women's game on average, you're only coming out with exceptions.
Secondly, women's tennis is a lower quality than mens!!! I can't believe I need to explain this to you! Men's tennis is far higher quality, as they are are better players. It's like comparing the England men's football team to the women's. Men's team would kick their ass!! Hence, men's football is a higher quality. Same with tennis.

smithy
13-03-2007, 05:54 PM
From a spectator point of view, I know that I am paying loads of money
to see a match which can last 40 minutes as well as 3 hours
- whether men or women play.
Men's match can last 1h and women's can last 3h
as well as the other way around.
So that's the pain about being a tennis fan.
You never know how long you'll be there on the court.

And how are women's matches a lower quality?
I'm a big tennis fan, I watch a lot of tennis on tv
and I go to WTA, ATP and Grand Slam tournaments,
and I see the same quality
whether men or women play.

Firstly, a men's game lasts much longer than a women's game on average, you're only coming out with exceptions.
Secondly, women's tennis is a lower quality than mens!!! I can't believe I need to explain this to you! Men's tennis is far higher quality, as they are are better players. It's like comparing the England men's football team to the women's. Men's team would kick their ass!! Hence, men's football is a higher quality. Same with tennis.

Are you saying then that a male ranked 150 in the world is a better player and plays higher quality than a woman ranked 50th. I don't think so. I remember watching Henin v Capriatri in a U.S Open S/F , is was a 3 set thriller with brilliant quality , for me it was better than both the men's S/F put together. The women can play high quality tennis just the same as the men and deserve to be up there in the pay stakes with them. Just because they are women doesn't mean they can't play good quality and entertaining tennis or football.

How much tennis do you actually watch?

O Dogg
14-03-2007, 01:30 PM
I actually watch quite a bit of tennis - and would agree that women should either play the same amount of sets as men in grand slam tournaments - or accept being paid less money.

What about ticket prices? I have never attended a tennis match live - so have no idea on prices - however do you pay the same to watch women play as you do men? If you do, then I would argue a point against that also. Of course there are exceptions that a 3 set match could potentially last longer than a 5 set match - however logic says that if you are playing 5 sets instead of 3, then usually the game will last longer regardless of whether it is a female game or a male game.

As for the quality of tennis - womens tennis has indeed got better throughout the last decade or so - and some women have taken it to
another level being stronger and fitter than ever before - however they are still not on par with the men. And I don't really buy the argument of comparing 150th rank man v 50th rank women....if they are being paid the same, and you are paying the same to view the game - then you are expecting the same quality of tennis. Therefore compare players alike.

Would you say that Sharapova plays the same quality of tennis as Federer? Would you say she can pull off the same sorts of shots as Federer? With the same power? Or speed around the court? I accept the argument women are not as powerful as men etc, and it is fair enough - but these factors mean that the tennis women play is not up to the same quality as the mens game.

Therefore for the reasons above, I personally believe that men earn the right to be paid more than women. It is nothing to do with sexism.

fmadmin
14-03-2007, 02:12 PM
the big thing is ..as has already been said ...the organisers are only paying equal money because of the pc brigade ...not because they deserve it .. Its a PR stunt really ..good for Wimbledon and all that baloney .

Should women doctors get the same as men , should policemen get the same as policewomen ...no of course not .it is dependant on their skills and hours they put in to the job .

I watch a fair bit of womens tennis and to me the quality is just as good as the men , the difference is the men obviously hit harder and can last longer than the women .