Equal Prize Money For Women's Tennis

Every year in January the Australian Open is played out in Melbourne. It is one of the premiere sporting events of the year. It is an honour and a privilege for any country to host one of four the Grand Slams. Yet every year the same debate is reignited to taint the competition.

Equal prize money for women.

I would never assume that all men believe men should receive more prize money and interestingly it is not all women that believe in equality. So for the sake of this discussion I will simply call the people who oppose equal prize money for women in tennis as the opponents.

The opponents claim that women should not receive the same amount of prize money because they play the best of three sets and men play the best of five. This is the supposed crux of the debate. However, by the end of this article you’ll see just how powerful the intense backlash against women’s progress can be and that what really is being debated is women’s inferiority.

The discussion centres on women not playing for long enough. I hope to demonstrate that the length of time spent on the court is largely irrelevant with regards to prize money. But in order to utterly refute the opponents, let’s tackle that idea. I would argue it is not women who do not play long enough but men who play for too long. Why not shift the debate from equal prize money for women and instead concentrate on shortening the length of the men’s game. Diminishing women’s prize money it’s not the only way to “even the playing field”, but it is always the argument primarily proposed by the opponents.

For a while now, women’s tennis has rated higher on television broadcasts than men’s tennis & Grand Slam ticket sales for women’s semis and finals often sell more than the men’s. The Williams sisters have played a significant role in this, particularly in the US where spectators are accustomed to and enjoy watching elite female athletes.

There are a number reasons why women’s tennis rates higher than men’s and one of them absolutely is that the duration of play is more palatable. Only die-hard fans will endure a five set game, played through until the early hours.

But in regards to prize money, it is not the length of time spent on the court that matters but the entertainment value. Opponents will argue that men’s games are more entertaining but this is completely subjective. Women and men play a very different game. Men can hit the ball harder. Consequently, women engage in longer rallies and are therefore more strategic. We are conditioned to view male sports as better but if we open our minds, drop the sexism and appreciate that men and women are different not superior or inferior then appreciation can come in both games.

When you pay to see a performer it is not the length of time on stage you are paying for, but the entertainment value. You pay the same price to see a ninety-minute film as you do a three-hour film and no one suggests otherwise. I wonder if the opponents have ever argued that their ticket price be reduced when a film has fallen short of the 90 minute mark?

Let’s keep in mind that tennis is not a salary job paid by the hour. Sport is part of the entertainment industry. Look at wrestling, boxing, even poker. The prize money is not based on how many rounds they fight or how many hands it takes to win. The prize money allocated to the winner, the length of time spent on the court, in the ring or at the table, matters very little.

Prize money is also allocated according to revenue generated from sponsorship, ticket sales and advertising. Higher television ratings equates to higher advertising revenue. Why should women earn less prize money when they actually generate more revenue?

Sex sells. Sponsors are acutely aware of this. Women are indisputably easier to look at, especially when playing tennis. Women’s tennis uniforms have evolved to accentuate their aesthetic appeal, whilst their male counterparts have remain largely unchanged. This is undeniable and contributes to ratings and tournament sponsorship deals.

I need to transgress to point out the intense homoeroticism in male sport spectatorship. Shouldn’t heterosexual men prefer watching women play? As a lesbian woman I know I do. Of course in truth men use sports spectatorship to narcissistically identify with the male body as thing of beauty. Sport is one of the few places where men can express passion and adoration for other men without judgement from an assumption of male homosexuality. Male athletes are a symbol of masculinity and male sport is the platform used for transforming men into modern cultural heroes.

What happens to this when we afford women, equal status?

In any event, it is not women who choose to play three sets. This is a tradition. A tradition based on the sexist perspective that women do not have the endurance or stamina to last five sets. I would argue that marathon running and childbirth prove otherwise. In fact endurance is women’s true strength. And if we are to believe the infomercials offering men longer lasting sex and the harrowing statistics on heterosexual female orgasms, I would suggest that it is male stamina that needs to be addressed.

The argument is reductive anyway. What, for example happens on a day when both the men’s and women’s games go for three sets? Does a man who finishes off an opponent in three sets deserve less money that one who drags it out for five. If players were being paid according to the length of time spent on the court or for the number of sets played, then players would start to manipulate their games to extend them for more money.

The argument would of course, keep shifting in an attempt to diminish women’s progress. If women played five sets then the argument would shift to women not being deserving of equal prize money because they can’t hit the ball as hard, play as fast, or because they serve less aces. There would always be a reason to attempt to deny women equal prize money.

At the true heart of the opponents argument lays an inherent discrimination. Opponents truthfully don’t think women deserve equal prize money because they believe the women’s game is inferior. Pure and simple. They can’t say this out loud for fear of the wrath of the sex discrimination act so the focus shifts to the obvious disparity in number of sets played.

The argument would carry more weight if women received equal pay for equal work in every other professional arena including other sports. Globally there are only a few professions where women have gained equal pay. Of course we can only talk about those women in countries who have the right to work in the first place. Two such professions are modelling and prostitution. In practically every other profession worldwide women are paid less for equal work. Why are the opponents not so vocal about that?

When golf or surfing tournaments are played why do we not hear such vocal opposition to men being paid more, when women surf the same waves and play on the same green for just as long?

Isn’t it interesting how much focus is placed on prize money in tennis? It seems everyone has an opinion. With regards to other sports it is taken as a given that women earn less or nothing at all. And who dares disrupt the status quo?

Layne Beachley (7 times world surfing champion) has calculated that over the 19 years she has been competing on the tour, she has earned, on average, just $32,000 a year. The prize money on offer had she been a man is five times this amount. But you wont find anywhere near the amount of discussion on this.

Sadly, I have heard female opponents to equal prize money for women and it reminds me that we live in a society that conditions people to protest any progress that women make. Every progress made from the right to education, to enter a library, to work, to vote, has been met with serious backlash. I have never really understood why our progress is so threatening to men who already have those advantages. Women are not asking to usurp male dominance, merely to “even the playing field”. We are not suggesting that we earn more than men, just the same. Why this threatens men so much I am not so sure.

When you consider what is involved for a man to bring a child into the world and what is involved for a woman no one would argue that men’s contribution is vastly smaller. Men have to have sex. Women have to have sex, carry the child, give birth and breastfeed. This equates to a couple of years of investment, enormous physical involvement and often career sacrifice and this is all before the child-rearing begins, as opposed to the male contribution of 15mins or so, (I’m being generous). Does anyone seriously suggest that the effort or work men put in, given that it is so much less (a lot less than a couple of sets of tennis, mind you) should equate to less parental rights? No. Because we acknowledge that each party’s contribution is just as valid even though it is vastly different.

When are the opponents going to see that what men and women offer in all areas is different but equal?

I would respect the opponent’s position more if women weren’t so grossly disadvantaged globally. Gender inequality is disturbingly on the increase. Women do two-thirds of the world’s work, receive 10 percent of the world’s income, own 1 percent of the means of production and own less than 1% of world property.

Women’s tennis is the most successful female sport in terms of income. Instead of women enjoying this accomplishment they are forced to defend their progress at every Grand Slam tournament.

Lesbian-ism

In truth it was only upon creating this design that I began to consider the literary, social and political connotations of the term Lesbianism. Why the ism? When did Lesbians become isms? When did I become an ism?

Sure there are a lot of great isms out there, such as feminism, altruism and socialism. Equally there are a whole bunch I’d rather disassociate myself from, such as fascism, Catholicism, Judaism and patriotism.

If homosexual men are universally referred to as Gay, why, when and where did homosexual women become part of a social and political movement known as Lesbianism?

Was it because mainstream society preferred not to think of sex in the absence of men and opted for a political term instead? Perhaps it was assumed that to be Lesbian was to be inherently political or feminist and thus not comfortable sharing a label with men? Perhaps it was just semantics?

To identify as Lesbian usually denotes a strong physical and emotional attraction to women that isn’t felt towards men. The word Lesbian dates back to at least 1732 and Lesbianism first appears in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1870 defined as sexual orientation. Lesbian as an adjective is in the 1890 version and achieved the status of noun by 1925.

Of course the earliest references to same-sex attraction between women are attributed to Sappho and the island of Lesbos in ancient Greece from about 625 – 570 BCE, which is where the term Lesbian originated. Historically then a Lesbian was simply a resident of Lesbos.

So Lesbian is an ancient term and Lesbianism relatively modern. So what about ism itself? An ism is taken from the Greek suffix ismos that forms nouns from verbal stems. The suffix ism has been used historically to express concepts pertaining to belief systems in religion, art, culture, political theory, action, disease, prejudice, etc in so far as isms represent the doctrine or philosophy behind the practice. Its first recorded use was in 1680.

Catholic-Catholicism, Alcoholic-Alcoholism, Lesbian–Lesbianism. Hmmm.

Interestingly whilst homosexuality among men was largely illegal until mid-late 20th century, (and remains so in certain countries with the death penalty as punishment), Lesbianism has never been. Even religious teachings that condemn homosexual behaviour among men are curiously scant on Lesbianism. Queen Victoria, according to accounts, left Lesbianism out of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 because she believed that sex between two women was not even possible. This belief has much residue in society.

Why I wonder if sex between two women is not ‘possible’ are heterosexual men so fascinated with it? For an act that doesn’t exist, everyone seems pretty keen to watch. For some men it’s merely an erotic fantasy, whilst others genuinely pursue a sexual relationship with Lesbians and Lesbian couples. Often these same men find homosexual sex among men disgusting. Here we have the Lesbian paradox.

So Lesbianism then does not pertain to dominant culture perceptions of sex. This we can safely say. But are we any closer to understanding what it does mean? In the literal sense it is supposedly the philosophy behind the practice of being a Lesbian. So what is the practice of being a Lesbian?

A Lesbian defines herself in terms of women, not men. She rejects male definitions of sex, love and life. To be a Lesbian means to love oneself, a woman, in a society and culture that often denigrates women. As a Lesbian I reject the male dominated world, ideology and definition of myself as inferior.

Lesbianism then is more than just a sexual preference; it transcends male fantasy and becomes a political choice. I do not rely on men for emotional, financial, physical, sexual or political support. For this I rely on women. Women are important to me and thus I am important to myself. This is the philosophy behind the practice. Lesbian-Lesbianism.

We can’t deny that relationships between men and women are loaded with power and dominance and as such are essentially political. Lesbianism then must be a rejection of the dominant political power structure. Lesbianism means defying women’s reliance on heterosexuality and suggests a collective struggle to end oppression by cutting ties to male privilege.

Of course it could really just mean mind blowingly satisfying orgasms. :)

What does it mean to you?

Top 10 Activist Groups:

If it weren’t for concerned, motivated and active groups of people taking a stand and taking action all the gains in human, environmental, and animal rights would not have been made. As Margaret Mead famously said;

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

So here is a compilation of 10 of the best activist organizations from around the globe in no particular order.

1. (IFAT) International Fair Trade Association

www.ifat.org

The stated mission of IFAT is to improve the livelihoods and well being of disadvantaged producers by linking and promoting Fair Trade Organizations, and speaking out for greater justice in world trade.

IFAT highlights fair trading practices and shows how a successful business can also put people first. They are actively engaged in dialogues with political decision makers on making international trade fairer and mainstream businesses more aware of their social responsibility.

Those businesses contributing to sustainable development can be recognised by the FTO Mark.

2. (PETA) People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

www.peta.org

PETA, founded in 1980, is an international non-profit charitable organization based in Norfolk, Virginia, with affiliates in the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, India, and the Asia-Pacific Region. With more than 1.8 million members and supporters, it is the largest animal rights organization in the world.

PETA is dedicated to defending the rights of animals by focusing its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most: on factory farms, in laboratories, in the clothing trade, and in the entertainment industry.

Through investigative work, congressional involvement, consumer boycotts, and international media coverage, PETA operate under the ethos that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.

3. Greenpeace

www.greenpeace.org

“Greenpeace exists because this fragile Earth deserves a voice. It needs solutions. It needs change. It needs action.”

Greenpeace has been campaigning against environmental degradation since 1971 and is an independent organization present in 40 countries across Europe, the Americas, Asia and the Pacific whose core mission is to change attitudes and seeks solutions to protect and conserve the environment.

To maintain its independence, Greenpeace does not accept donations from governments or corporations but relies on contributions from individual supporters and foundation grants.

4. (NOW) National Organization for Women

www.now.org

Founded in 1966, NOW is the largest organization of feminist activists in the United States, with over 500,000 contributing members.

The goal of the organization is to campaign for equality and justice for all women in areas such as reproductive rights, workplace discrimination and harassment, violence against women, homophobia, racism and all other forms of discrimination against women.

5. American Atheists

www.atheists.org

Founded in 1963, by Madalyn Murray O'Hair, American Atheists has been the premier organization dedicated to the civil liberties of Atheists, and the total, absolute separation of church and state.

The organization defends the rights of intellectuals such as writer Salman Rushdie, protests the use of government funds to support public religious displays, publishes books about Atheism and preserves Atheist literature and history in the nation's largest archive of its kind.

6. Adbusters

www.adbusters.org

Adbusters describes itself as “…a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age. Our aim is to topple existing power structures and forge a major shift in the way we will live in the 21st century.”

Founded in 1989 and based in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, Adbusters is a not-for-profit, reader-supported, 120,000-circulation magazine and culture jamming movement. Culture jamming is a form of non-violent protest, public activism and a resistance to commercialism, using guerrilla communication to subvert mass media.

7. (SSCS) Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

www.seashepherd.org

SSCS was established in 1977 in Vancouver BC, Canada, whose mission is to end the destruction of habitat and slaughter of wildlife in the world’s oceans in order to conserve and protect ecosystems and species.

It is an international non-profit, marine wildlife conservation organization with members who call themselves eco-pirates. Their direct-action methods are used to expose and confront illegal activities on the high seas to safeguard the ocean biodiversity.


8. (AWID) Association for Women’s Rights in Development

www.awid.org

AWID was founded in 1982 and is an international membership organization connecting, informing and mobilizing people and organizations committed to achieving gender equality, sustainable development and women's human rights.

In an attempt to improve the lives of women AWID facilitates debates and builds the capacities of organizations working for women’s empowerment and social justice. They aim to cause policy, institutional and individual change.

9. (HRC) Human Rights Campaign

www.hrc.org

Founded in 1980, by Steve Endean, HRC is the largest national gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, representing more than 700,000 members and supporters nationwide. As the largest national gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, HRC works to create a fair environment for the glbt community where people are ensured of their basic equal rights, and can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.

10. (WWF) World Wide Fund for Nature

wwf.org

Founded in 1961, WWF is one of the largest environmental organizations in the world. Their mission statement is:
To stop the degradation of the planet's natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by:
· conserving the world's biological diversity
· ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable
· promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption.

Are faith based schools divisive, discriminatory and dangerous?

A generous funding arrangement both state and federal, implemented under the Howard government in Australia has seen a growth in independent faith based schools, a rise that is nothing short of revolutionary.

However it is not exemplary academic records that are luring parents to enrol, it is strong religious values and low fees that are the key draw cards. But are these schools beneficial to society as a whole or are they serving a small minority whilst eroding social cohesion, and are the rest of us paying for it?

The devout claim that parents have a right to have their children educated in a manner that integrates their faith and spiritual development. Whilst I respect the right and freedom of belief and the right and freedom of education it has never been the responsibility of publicly funded schools to instil religious faith and nor should it ever be. What you teach your children in your home is your business. Australia is a secular society and as such public funds should support secular education. Surely the responsibility of publicly funded schools is to do what they do best – improve teaching and learning for all students.

Because religious schools tend to draw students from singular ethnic communities almost entirely, they are in fact contributing to religious-racial segregation. This is not good preparation for life in a wider multi-cultural society. It enhances social exclusion, fragmentation and disrupts social cohesion.

In addition to funding from a secular-based taxation system for faith-based schools that fragment communities, the curriculum in these schools is also under scrutinised. What are students being taught and who are the educators employed to teach them?

Independent schools have been granted exemption from the state curriculum. Under Victorian law, it is not compulsory for private schools to teach evolution, though it is recommended and asks schools to teach it and explain the link between natural selection and evolution. However, as it is not compulsory for independent schools to teach this, it is widely accepted that creationism is taught in science classes.

The Accelerated Christian Education (or ACE) curriculum shows that in a primary school science class a statement such as: "God made many kinds of fish. He made them on day five.” is commonplace, with a comprehension test going along with the statement asking the children on which day God made fish.

Often evolution is not taught until senior high school years. It is obvious that the delay creates an illusion of choice of belief on behalf of the individual when in almost every instance children’s beliefs are long formed by this age. This has serious implications for further study. Increasing numbers of students are entering tertiary biology classes with creationist viewpoints that are irreconcilable.

One alternative to creationism and evolution that has also crept into the teachings at independent schools is Intelligent Design. This is also taught in science class. It boggles the mind. Intelligent Design is not based on facts and does not use any scientific reasoning. Intelligent Design is creationism relabelled. It has no place in a science classroom.

The scientific method is a set of techniques for the investigation and acquisition of new knowledge of the natural world. Therefore to qualify, a scientific a theory must be:

Consistent
Parsimonious
Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
Empirically testable and falsifiable
Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
Progressive (refines previous theories)
Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

Intelligent Design is at best anti-science and at worst blatant scientific fraud. Creationism in any form is just bad science. If religion and its theory of creationism has a place then surely it is in religious and philosophy classes, the home and in church, but never in a science class.

Moving on from unethical science education lets explore what is being taught in regards to sex education and homosexuality. What is being taught, and its broader effect on society, has been largely ignored. Government schools should be and are expected to deal with issues of safe sex, same-sex attraction, sexual harassment, homophobia and discrimination.

In direct conflict with government efforts to provide valuable and appropriate sex education to students, abstinence is instilled. Accompanied by a discriminatory assertion that sexual attraction should be expressed within the context of a monogamous, heterosexual marriage.

How is disparity in teaching even possible? Independent faith based schools are exempt from anti-discrimination laws. The exemption includes laws governing anti-discrimination pertaining to gender, religion and sexual orientation. So in addition to scientific fraud and an irresponsible sex education devoid of anything useful these schools can pay women less than men for doing the same teaching duties, expel homosexual students, sack teachers found to have different religious beliefs or those admitting to be homosexual themselves.

This at first glance appears undemocratic and on further investigation downright illegal. With increasing numbers of students being taught at these schools it will only take a generation for the equality gained by women, lesbians and homosexual men to unravel. This poses a serious threat to society as a whole.

Education must be a place where ideas are explored. Not where belief systems are indoctrinated. How will these students cope at university, in the job market and wider social environments where they will face, often for the first time, pluralism in religion, culture, ethnicity and sexual preference?

Our environment is at crisis point. Oil is running out. Drought is devastating agriculture. More and more people are starving in the world. The next few decades are crucial. We need critically thinking children who use evidence based reasoning to solve these problems, not faith based decisions. To suggest as some faith based schools do, that pollution is an effect of sin will do little to counteract it and its effect on our environment and health. What it will do is reinforce prejudice and intolerance.

Stephen O’Doherty, CEO Christian Schools Australia claims “Addressing inequality is about looking to the needs of the whole child and their social context. This commitment goes to the core mission of Christian schooling.”

This directly contradicts the anti-science teachings, discriminatory practices and irresponsible sex education. It is clear that the autonomy of children choosing their own beliefs and values is neither encouraged nor respected.

Independent faith based schools conflict with secular state education. A secular society and education offers children the opportunity to engage with people from diverse backgrounds where barriers to social inclusion are removed. An individual’s religious, cultural, and socio-economic circumstance does not limit their interaction. This has wider implications not just for the individual but also for society and the world as a whole.

The great marriage debate.

People marry for many reasons, to publicly declare their love or legitimise their relationship, to have a family, improve economic stability, and sometimes for citizenship in a foreign country. Whether the reasons for marriage are legal, emotional, social or financial some truths emerge about the consequences of marriage on the individual. Marriage has been shown repeatedly to make people happier, healthier and wealthier.

The case for wealthier:

It has been shown that married people fair better in employment particularly with regards to earnings. This is most apparent when a large portion of unpaid labour in the home is performed by only one of the married persons; in traditional relationships this is usually a woman. This unequal division of labour provides the working partner with greater freedom to dedicate themselves to their work, become more specialised, receive promotions and ultimately earn more. This greatly increases the combined wealth of the couple. Baxter and Gray (2003) found married men earn 15% more on average than unmarried men.

In addition to increased earning potential marriage creates wealth in other ways depending on the specific tax advantages within a country’s system. Marital status is a determining factor in receiving benefits, rights and privileges. Some of the financial advantages that may be available within marriage are health insurance, inheritance rights, no estate tax and a lower tax rate for joint filing.

The case for happier:

The Australian Survey of Social Attitudes of 2005 undisputedly discovered that married people were considerably happier. 78% of married people rate themselves as 7 or above on 0-10 scale, compared to 63% of the never married. In fact married couples were also happier than de facto couples. Married people were more likely to be in the very happy 9-10 range, 32% compared to 21% among de facto couples. This indicates that marriage itself and not simply being partnered influenced happiness positively. These results have been replicated elsewhere. Data from a 15-year study of over 24,000 individuals living in Germany also indicated that people who get married and stayed married are more satisfied with their lives than their unmarried counterparts.

Casting aside discrepancies between genders, which is a discussion for a whole other article, the fact remains that married people do report higher levels of happiness than unmarried people.

The case for healthier

De Vaus (2002) concluded that marriage is a protective factor against social pathologies, greatly reducing the risk of mental disorders such as depression. He found that married men had better mental health than single men and that married women also had the best mental health. A 2002 study conducted at La Trobe University in Australia revealed that married women with children were the least likely to suffer mental health problems. Single men are twice as likely to commit suicide as married men. (Miller-Tutzauer et al, 1991).

Life expectancy is increased through marriage. Mortality rates for single men are 250% higher than married men. Single women have mortality rates that are 50% higher than married women (Ross et all, 1990). This research demonstrates that marriage protects both men and women against mental disorders and increases life expectancy. These are all good things really.

Enough dry statistics. Lets talk about something more controversial. Same-sex marriage.

Since 2001, five nations have made same-sex marriage legal, namely the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, and South Africa. In the United States, Massachusetts is the only state to recognize same-sex marriage under the name marriage whilst several other states offer civil unions or domestic partnerships, which grant same-sex couples some or all of the same rights under state law granted to married couples.

Civil unions are a separate form of legal union open to couples of the same sex. Denmark was the first country in the world (in 1989) to extend the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples under the name of registered partnership. Civil unions (and registered partnerships) are currently recognized in 24 out of 193 countries worldwide.

Without question stable relationships are better for society. Being happier, healthier and wealthier can only impact positively. It reduces the need for society to support its members as each spouse looks out for the other often providing care that would fall to a public health or social welfare system.

But with de facto status often granted to same-sex couples is there a need for same-sex marriage? Absolutely. Marriage and living together are not the same thing. Brown and Booth (1996) found that cohabitation typically does not bring the benefits—in physical health, wealth, and emotional wellbeing—that marriage does. This is partly due to the tendency of cohabitants orientation towards personal autonomy over the wellbeing of their partner and also due to commitment discrepancies.

Cohabitating couples do not have the same level of commitment. Although married couples often succumb to the same problems and issues as those who are merely cohabiting, marriage provides a level of commitment legally, emotionally, financially and socially. It is much easier to leave a relationship without these entanglements.

When society doesn’t value your relationship it is harder to value it yourself. Society labels same-sex couples as second-class citizens by denying them the opportunity to validate their relationships. This has consequences not just for the individual or couple but also for their entire extended family. Same–sex couples exist within a family unit. They are someone’s daughter, son, niece, nephew, grandchild, sibling, cousin, aunt, uncle, parent or grandparent. The toll taken on a family that experiences the discrimination and exclusion of same-sex individuals within their family is understated and often ignored.

If we acknowledge that to love freely and have your love recognised by society is a fundamental right and that there is absolutely no difference in the ability of same-sex couples to care for each other, then the law of marriage should apply to same-sex couples as well.

Marriage establishes a spouse as a next-of-kin. Your next of kin is involved in practically every legal matter, from medical decision-making to property rights to funeral arrangements. It is a severe violation of human rights to deny this to same-sex couples.

Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry will not stop same-sex couples from having loving committed relationships. What it will do is perpetuate prejudice and intolerance to the detriment of the individual, the couple and society as a whole.

Same-sex couples pay the same taxes, fight the same wars and abide by the same laws and responsibilities as other citizens, this is reason enough to grant the same rights.

To claim marriage as a tradition is to suggest that traditions are immutable. Marriage as an arrangement has changed significantly over time. Women are no longer considered their husband’s property, divorce is legal, interracial marriage is legal, polygamy is prohibited, and marital rape is considered a crime. Customs and traditions change and are not justification enough for violating human rights. Same-sex marriage is just another branch in the evolution of the institution of marriage.

Small business – sustainability leaders?

There is a lot of talk about corporate responsibility and the environment. Individuals are tiring of the onus being placed on them to change the world. Have shorter showers, water your garden less, switch to green power, change your light globes, car pool, take reusable bags to the supermarket, and recycle. All of these are necessary but pale in comparison to the damage being done by big business and industry.

But what about small business?

Somewhere in between large corporations and the individual, lies small business. Australia, a country of about 21 million people, incredibly has over 2 million small businesses. In the US approximately 99.9% of all business is small. The ecological impact of these cannot be ignored.

It is easy to assume that large corporations are, by the nature of their large profits, less ethical but is this actually the case? Large corporations have large reputations to protect. Often it is more cost effective for big business to invest in environmental impact minimisation than to clean up the mess afterwards. They also have the capital to invest in changing technologies to not only utilise the green machine but to actually profit from it, directly through carbon trading and indirectly through marketing with a social conscience.

So where does small business fit in and what can be done? The answer is very little or a lot. It depends on your business model, your business goals and your values. The advantage that small business has over a large multinational is fewer layers of bureaucracy and more transparency. Big business generally has a board of directors that need to be convinced, then a feasibility study conducted before changes can be implemented. As a small business owner you can conceive it and implement it virtually simultaneously.

Here are some of the things you can do:

- Recycle. Seems simple enough but you may have to find different depots for your various waste such as paper, plastic, printer cartridges, batteries, computers and other electronic parts.

- Switch to paperless billing. It is resource intensive to print and deliver paper. It is also time consuming and unreliable.

- Switch to a Green Power company that derives its energy from renewable sources that do not pollute.

- Reduce water consumption by ensuring your business has dual flush toilets and water efficient taps.

- Choose energy efficient vehicles for your business.

- Choose sustainable suppliers. Research suppliers whose ethos includes environmental sustainability. The potential for eco-conscious small businesses to support each other is large and underestimated.

- Donate to charities. Really any charity is a positive step but a charity that is aligned with your business practice or goals serves to reinforce those values.

- Become Carbon Neutral. This does not simply mean paying for an offset for bad business practice or paying for the right to pollute, this means establishing the carbon footprint of your business, then reducing emissions as far as possible. Once a minimal emissions target has been met the residual emissions can be neutralised by the acquisition of offsets.

The changes that you make may depend on your local economic landscape but have the potential to impact locally and globally. Small business is more important than ever and has a responsibility to future generations.

Hunting For Sport – An Indulgent Tradition

There is a fundamental difference between killing for sustenance and hunting for sport. The legal definition of cruelty to animals is: ‘the unnecessary infliction of physical pain, suffering or death’. Based on that definition, hunting for sport is a cruel and barbaric pastime.

My grandmother had chickens. We ate the eggs and occasionally the chicken. She would ring its neck, and then pluck it before my eyes. It was not hunting and it was not sport. My grandmother took no pleasure in the act of killing the bird but she took great pleasure in feeding her extended family.

Hunters on the other hand derive pleasure from the hunt. They celebrate the killing. Often this is achieved by mounting a piece of the animal that has suffered on a wall or by posting a video or photograph of the hunt online.

Within the sport of hunting, the playing field is in favour of the hunter. Only the hunter knows they are in the game. Hunting often occurs in closed, prescribed zones where animals have little or no chance of escape. Discussions from hunters regarding the ethics of hunting generally pertain to the fairness between hunters themselves and not between the hunter and the animal. For example, it is “unethical” to shoot a duck resting on water and “ethical” to shoot at the bird in flight. This ethic establishes nothing more than fair play amongst hunters. The increased accuracy of shooting a duck resting on water minimises unnecessary injury and a slow painful death.

Equipment has become increasingly high tech including long range hunting rifles that are deadly to 600 yards. Given the likelihood of human error from this distance the chance of injuring an animal is high. Cameras are used to assess the size, species and sex of the animals passing the spot they plan to hunt and advanced optics to locate animals more easily. Often a GPS will be utilised to spot terrain features suitable for prey and sensors to alert the hunter of a nearby animal.

Other popular practices are baiting, which is the use of decoys, lures, scent or food to attract animals, the use of camouflage either for visual concealment or scent, to blend with the environment and using artificial light to find, light or blind animals, a charming practice known as spotlighting.

Dogs may be used to help flush, herd, drive, track, point at, pursue or retrieve prey. Hunting with dogs is particularly cruel because hunting dogs are bred for endurance not speed to ensure an extended chase, which makes for a more ‘entertaining’ sport. This of course causes the animal being pursued to suffer for longer.

Some of the most heinous hunting methods involve trapping which is the use of devices such as snares, body grippers, Conibears and legholds to capture or kill an animal. It is safer for the hunter to trap an animal and requires less time and energy. Animals caught in leghold traps suffer enormous pain as their foot or leg breaks or is dislocated. As the animal struggles to get free the trapped limb is mutilated. Often in desperation an animal will chew off a leg in order to get free from a trap. Otherwise they succumb to exhaustion, dehydration, shock and death. While leghold traps have been banned by more than 85 nations, the top 3 fur-producing countries; the U.S., Canada, and Russia, continue to use them. In addition to the cruelty inflicted on a trapped animal, the traps are often indiscriminate. Other animals including endangered species are mutilated or killed by traps. Reportedly anywhere from 10-40% of animals caught will be non-target animals.

Hunting advocates like to claim that hunting is necessary as a means of population control and that they are in fact conservationists doing everybody including the animal a huge favour. This rhetoric is deceptive and irresponsible. In the absence of predators, an environments ecological carrying capacity can be exceeded and animals will surely die a slow painful death from starvation, or so the justification goes. However, hunters do not seek out and kill only those animals within the population most likely to die of starvation; in fact the opposite is true. Whether hunting for trophy or meat it is the largest and strongest males that are targeted. This also disrupts the natural 1:1 male to female birth ratio of animals, leaving a disproportionate number of females, which will inevitably produce more in the subsequent years to the point of overpopulation.

Both of these practices disrupt natural selection. Left alone, animal populations can and do regulate their own numbers. Whilst human intervention and irregular natural occurrences can cause an animals population to rise and fall temporarily, the group soon stabilises through natural processes.

The absence of predators is almost entirely due to human intervention through excessive hunting and habitat destruction. Predators have been systematically eliminated to provide habitat for game species. When natural predators are reintroduced there is absolutely no need for hunters to do any favours. The reintroduction of predators is the most effective and natural wildlife management tool. Natural predators help keep a prey species healthy and optimum by killing only the weak or sick not the large, strong trophy animals that hunters kill.

The other regular catchcry of hunters is that they fund conservation efforts. This is misleading. It is not a donation nor charitable act, it occurs indirectly through licences and excise taxes. Hunters would hunt, purchase licences and pay taxes if none of the money was redistributed to conservation. The funding in fact is mostly used for habitat manipulation and ‘management’ for hunters, to protect their game species. True conservationists would push for all the revenue to be used for habitat protection, not manipulation to overpopulate target animals. Game officials are appointed and their salaries are paid through hunting fees. This creates a conflict of interest, as game officials are therefore not neutral and represent the hunters. Dependent on the activity of hunting itself very few are going to question conservation ethics.

Contrary to the ‘who’s going to fund conservation if we don’t’ analogy, conservation funding need not rely on hunting activities. There is a multitude of revenue raising pursuits such as eco-tourism, hiking, wildlife photography etc that can provide the necessary funds for habitat protection and wildlife preservation.

Animals die needlessly, directly and indirectly every day through habitat destruction, pollution, and other human impact environmental degradation, it is not necessary and grossly indulgent to add to this with recreational hunting.

To suggest that recreational hunting is a tradition that should be preserved is to suggest that cultural values are immutable. This is erroneous to say the least. Traditions can and have changed with changing values. Consider slavery and marital rape, both were accepted, widespread and legal but abolished and outlawed because of their inherent cruelty. Traditions are capable of change and are not sufficient to justify inhumane practices. The hunting community need to acknowledge the false and misleading arguments used to justify hunting for sport and address the validity of the counter arguments for animal welfare.