Why men will always be more highly regarded than women

[Lonhro]

The title is not actually a belief of mine or a statement, but rather a question.

So everyone knows nowadays that it's "apparently" all about "equality", how women have, in the past, been considered inferior both mentally and physically. This goes all the way up to holding major positions in large corporations right down to whether it is "right" for a woman to be a labourer - it's pretty hard for me to gather my words right now, but you get my drift.

Yesterday's major news bulletin over here (Sydney, Australia) starts off with three major headlines, as I suspect (and have experienced) in the States and other European countries. Yesterday the headlines went in an order similar to this: "The Federal Government releases plans for a $10bn overhaul of water management; The State Government defends the lack of on-time performance of the State rail system despite a huge increase in spending; Serena Williams wins the Australian Open Women's title."

Tonight I get home from a night out, just in time for the nightly bulletin. It was:

"Roger Federer wins his third Australian Open title; dozens of people lose their homes in bushfires in Western Australia; outrage over plans to film a movie based on the 2003 notorious gang-rapes in Western Sydney."

I have nothing against women. I definitely do not feel like men are superior. Why do I feel that no matter how many advances there seem to have been in the past decades/centuries, women will NEVER be on a level playing field with men? Tonight was a prime example.

Discuss.

Note: FWIW, I believe this was also Serena's third Australian Open title - just as significant.

[SamIAm]

I really don't get your point with the headlines. Or much of anything else in your post. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
-Sam

[JMa]

yeah? The AUS open started in 1905. it seems like they started the women's single in 1922. this year the total prize pool for AUS open was A$20M, with both the men's single winner and the women's single winner both receiving A$1.281M.

[Klompy]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't get your point with the headlines. Or much of anything else in your post. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
-Sam

[/ QUOTE ]

The woman was listed second, but the man was listed first.

[adsman]

How are those headlines supposed to be supporting your argument? I don't even understand what the hell you're talking about.

[Miss Pink]

I think he is saying the women's is considered the "Australian Open Women's title" while the men is just "Australian Open title."

I agree that that men are and always will be higher than women, but this is a horrible set of examples.

[Elandriel]

Yes

[RunDownHouse]

Lonhro,

If Serena was as dominant as Federer, maybe she would have made top headline as well.

[DrewDevil]

Women aren't as good at sports as men. Federer would beat Serena 6-0, 6-0 and everyone knows this.

[RacersEdge]

It really comes down to the fact that Roger Federer is a much much better tennis player than Serena Williams.