51658941 PH2535 Take Home Exam
2) ‘The segregation of sports competitions by sex is unfair’. Do you agree? Why/why not? In your answer, examine at least one of the arguments presented in class for or against this claim.
Tännsjö believes that segregation in sports is unfair and that sex-based restrictions shouldn’t be allowed in sports. Philosophers and athletes alike have a difference of option resolving around this topic. In this paper, I will argue that gender is not a significant factor within sports and that segregation is unjustified. Comment by Rafferty, Maximilia: Who is this? Nice idea to start with a researched fact, but try and give it a narrative flow. Maybe give a bit more background before-hand – I noticed you talk about football for most of it, maybe state that your essay will be specifically looking at football - then say ‘Philosopher (?)Tännsjö adds to this discussion, arguing that segregation…’ Comment by Rafferty, Maximilia: Nice!
Funding has a huge impact on sports and the outcome of competitions and it is clear to see that there is a difference in the amount of funding between men and women sports. F The funding relates to the amount of revenue the sport can generate, looking at football, it is a highly commercialised sport that generates a significant amount of money resulting in highly paid salaries. The governing bodies don’t equally distribute the money. The winner of the mens FA cup receives £1,800,00 compared to £25,000 for women. Ruth Holdaway, chief executive of the charity Women in Sport claims there isnt such a commercial gulf and womens sport has commercial value, “You only have to look at the women’s cricket world cup this summer where the final, which England won, was a sell-out at Lord’s.”. Given this argument the BBC conducted an experiment which showed that 83 per cent of sports now pay men and women the same amount in prize money which is extremely encouraging. Although football still has a huge disparity between pay its part of a small minority within the sporting community. Comment by Rafferty, Maximilia: I suggest rewording this, maybe along the lines of ‘Funding has a huge impact on sports and the outcome of competitions, thus the difference in funding for men and womens sports is an important issue within this debate’ Comment by Rafferty, Maximilia: Reword? Using football as an example, one can see that … (again, just giving it more of a flow) Comment by Rafferty, Maximilia: Good use of resources! Just when using a quote, put the full-stop after the quotation marks
Some would argue that ‘pPhysically’ woman cannot keep up with men in sports. This believes that it’s in womens best intentions that they dont play with men for their safety. This is where I disagree. In 1896 prior to the modern Olympic era test concluded that on average men outperform women by a 10% gap. Nevertheless, over the last century womens female times have improved more than mens males, which and that can be linked to receiving the specialist training and high-end facilities, that which men have had for years. “from 1983 onwards, the gender gap stabilized, and women’s records started to consistently come to roughly 90 percent of the men’s records.” (Alice Sanders Jul 29, 2016). Comment by Rafferty, Maximilia: I like this explanation, and you do well at situating yourself within the argument. However, I think it would flow better if the two sentences were joined together. I suggest replacing it with something along the lines of ‘It is not in a woman’s best interest to play with men for their safety, an argument which I disagree with.’ Comment by Rafferty, Maximilia: What is this quote doing to contribute to your argument? Make sure it flows. Maybe put in “Alice Sanders noted a stabilization of such record gaps in 1983, quote” Does she explain why they stabilized? That would be an important bit to put in
Technological improvements in sport science will close the gap between them. This resolves the issue around physicality and my next point states that sports has just as much skill involved. Comment by Rafferty, Maximilia: Is this something you argue? Clarify this a little. It’s a good point, and deserves a bit more focus. If needs be for word count, I would combine the paragraph below this (Jane English…) with the one above (physically women…) to allow for some more space in your word count to drive this point home.
Jane English’s approach to sex equality in sports looks at sex-blindness. Relating this to the case of Maribel Dominguez, whos transfer to a male only football team was blocked. If the player’s technical and physical ability is on par, or better:, then why should she not be allowed to play. This paper has revsolved around football which is a physical sport however this approach applies to all sports. Tennis for example has mixed doubles so why can’t women and men compete against each other in singles? The social norms of sport have impacted the way we watch it. Inevitably, English’s approach depends on society’s acceptance on something different. Comment by Rafferty, Maximilia: Like before, try not to start a paragraph with someones name (it’s something that I still find myself doing, and get marked off for haha). Try and use something to link the flow such as ‘Following Jane English’s approach’ or, ‘ Comment by Rafferty, Maximilia: What is sex-blindness? Comment by Rafferty, Maximilia: Reword: who was blocked from transferring to a male only football team. Comment by Rafferty, Maximilia: Nice! I would move this to your conclusion, as it is good at reflecting on the limitations of looking at only football, and connecting it your argument with other sports. Comment by Rafferty, Maximilia: Also, try and reword the part on Tennis so it is not asking a question: ‘Tennis, for example, has mixed doubles and is yet to see men and women compete against one another.’
Football remains away behind the rest of the sporting society. Until sports can treat the two genders equally showing faith and value to both they will not be able to compete at the same level.
I really like this essay! Very insightful, just a few bits that I think would work better reworded. Well done!
I shifted the bibliography down onto the next page, as it is something we are taught to do, however if it is not something you are told to do then by all means move it back.
Word Count: 517
Bibliography:
Luzzi, Frederico, 2018, “Sex and Sport”, Aberdeen University, PH2353 Gender Equality, https://abdn.blackboard.com/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_33370_1&content_id=_1387088_1
The FA, 2018, “Prize Fund”, England, http://www.thefa.com/competitions/womens/the-sse-womens-fa-cup/more/prize-fund
Kelner, Martha, 2017, “Football’s gender pay gap worse than politics, medicine and space” The Guardian,
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/nov/26/football-gender-pay-gap-worse-than-in-politics-medicine-and-space
Sander, Alice, 2016, “Is Gender Segregation in Sports Necessary?” PBS, http://www.pbs.org/how-we-got-to-now/blogs/howwegottonext/is-gender-segregation-in-sports-necessary/
Tweedale, Alasdair, 2017, “83 per cent of sports now give men and women equal prize money- but football retains largest pay gap” The Telegraph, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2017/06/19/83-per-cent-sports-now-give-men-women-equal-prize-money-football/
1) What is systematic testimonial injustice? Give an example and distinguish the primary and secondary harms arising in that example.
Testimonial injustice occurs when a person’s testimony isnt given the credibility he or she deserves. This can have detrimental effects and harms categorized as primary and secondary harms. Miranda Fricker contributed to this topic in her 2007 book Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing looking at the morality and effects of these decisions.
Fricker looks at the way power impacts testimonial injustice and the stance people can take in regard to those with less social power. One of Fricker’s most noticeable examples is the case of Mr Ripley from the film ‘The Talented Mr. Ripley’. It looks at how social power and gender holds certain assumptions. Marge Sherwood is a woman in the film who is stereotyped, and her feelings are based on emotion not intelligence. One of the characters undermines her by saying “Marge, there’s female intuition, and then theres facts.” This can be seen as a case of testimonial injustice as the hearer fails to give the speaker (Marge) any creditably by judging her based on her gender.
The primary harm includes giving out knowledge, “The capacity to give knowledge to others is one side of that many-sided capacity so significant in human beings: namely the capacity for reason.’ (2007, 44) Committing this is an immoral injustice and dehumanize us as human beings. Fricker highlights the understanding of being a knower and how it plays a role in the source of knowledge. Relating this to the example it is very similar as the person Marge is speaking too almost dehumanizes her by prejudging her and dismisses her contribution to the conversation immediately.
The secondary harm can vary but essentially has an underlying effect of undermining the reader, which can lead them to begin to question themselves. Obviously, this is an immoral act and the person suffering from this can have a variety of impacts affecting their confidence even too how they carry themself in conversations. Although people may be seen doing this unintentionally the costs can have significant effects on a person as it may even change their social stance on life all together as they lose a great deal when their integrity is lost. Compared to the example this can impact Marge as she could just play a part of society as the other characters intend her too and assume her thoughts are not worthy of contributing to conservations.
This example looks at how women can be affected by testimonial injustice, but it can affect all groups and minorities in different ways having detrimental consequences. People may turn a blind eye to this, but sexist prejudicial stereotypes definitely contribute as to why women might not reach the heights they should be reaching. Like the glass ceiling theory where people cannot reach a certain level.
Word Count: 459
Bibliography:
Wanderer, Jeremy, 2018, “Varieties of Testimonial Injustice” Academia, Boston http://www.academia.edu/15175742/Varieties_of_Testimonial_Injustice
Fricker, Miranda, 2007, “epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing”, Oxford Scholarship
Luzzi, Frederico, 2018, “Epistemic Injustice” Aberdeen University, PH2535 Gender Equality, https://abdn.blackboard.com/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_33370_1&content_id=_1387082_
