"Serena Williams and the Fear of a Dominant Black Woman"

[tented]

From the Daily Beast:

"Serena Williams and the Fear of a Dominant Black Woman"

 

[Federberg]

Interesting take. I don't particularly like Serena as a person, I've always been a fan of Venus over her. But I do agree that some of the treatment she's suffered is appalling. I recall one US Open when Andy Roddick was asked in a post match conference about what he thought of the fact that Oudin had just lost and all the American women were out. And he just looked at the journalist and shook his head... "Excuse me? Serena Williams?"

I just don't get it. It really enrages me, but there you have it! On a side note, I remember that Jason Wilcox (?) article. It was appalling :nono

 

[tossip]

Interesting take. I don't particularly like Serena as a person, I've always been a fan of Venus over her. But I do agree that some of the treatment she's suffered is appalling. I recall one US Open when Andy Roddick was asked in a post match conference about what he thought of the fact that Oudin had just lost and all the American women were out. And he just looked at the journalist and shook his head... "Excuse me? Serena Williams?"

I just don't get it. It really enrages me, but there you have it! On a side note, I remember that Jason Wilcox (?) article. It was appalling :nono

I think it was Jonny Mac who said that..Serena has endured a lot and that has made her so mentally strong .Richard and Oracene did a good job of preparing them for all this nonsense and who is having the last laugh...
Roddick and Serena are very good friends and her new hitting partner used to work with Roddick ...Serena is not apologetic for who she is and the establishment doesnt like that..look at Sloane and Madison they are trying really hard to fit in.

 

[Federberg]

Interesting take. I don't particularly like Serena as a person, I've always been a fan of Venus over her. But I do agree that some of the treatment she's suffered is appalling. I recall one US Open when Andy Roddick was asked in a post match conference about what he thought of the fact that Oudin had just lost and all the American women were out. And he just looked at the journalist and shook his head... "Excuse me? Serena Williams?"

I just don't get it. It really enrages me, but there you have it! On a side note, I remember that Jason Wilcox (?) article. It was appalling :nono

I think it was Jonny Mac who said that..Serena has endured a lot and that has made her so mentally strong .Richard and Oracene did a good job of preparing them for all this nonsense and who is having the last laugh...
Roddick and Serena are very good friends and her new hitting partner used to work with Roddick ...Serena is not apologetic for who she is and the establishment doesnt like that..look at Sloane and Madison they are trying really hard to fit in.

I would disagree that they're trying to fit in as such. They are benefitting from the presence of the Williams sisters before them. Sloane seems to be a very intelligent articulate woman in the mold of the Williams sisters, just a slightly different personality. And probably a more middle class background. I don't think it's necessary for every black player to represent the race, they are just tennis player after all

 

[tossip]

Interesting take. I don't particularly like Serena as a person, I've always been a fan of Venus over her. But I do agree that some of the treatment she's suffered is appalling. I recall one US Open when Andy Roddick was asked in a post match conference about what he thought of the fact that Oudin had just lost and all the American women were out. And he just looked at the journalist and shook his head... "Excuse me? Serena Williams?"

I just don't get it. It really enrages me, but there you have it! On a side note, I remember that Jason Wilcox (?) article. It was appalling :nono

I think it was Jonny Mac who said that..Serena has endured a lot and that has made her so mentally strong .Richard and Oracene did a good job of preparing them for all this nonsense and who is having the last laugh...
Roddick and Serena are very good friends and her new hitting partner used to work with Roddick ...Serena is not apologetic for who she is and the establishment doesnt like that..look at Sloane and Madison they are trying really hard to fit in.

I would disagree that they're trying to fit in as such. They are benefitting from the presence of the Williams sisters before them. Sloane seems to be a very intelligent articulate woman in the mold of the Williams sisters, just a slightly different personality. And probably a more middle class background. I don't think it's necessary for every black player to represent the race, they are just tennis player after all

Madison quickly distanced herself and said she is not black but when I look at her the first thing i see is a black girl....Sloane might be articulate but intelligent no...the way she denigrated Serena and Venus to the media doesnt say intelligent....
Richard had a security business and deliberately moved to Compton to toughen them up...

 

[Federberg]

^that's not lacking intelligence, that's immaturity

 

[tossip]

^that's not lacking intelligence, that's immaturity

she is not discerning..

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I agree with everything the article says. I just want to provide some additional explanation here.
First Serena (and Venus and others) get exactly the same amount of prize money for winning a tourney or reaching a particular stage of it as any other "beautiful white blonde girl" gets it. That in itself is a progress and we should take a minute to appreciate the fact that the society has at least advanced to that stage.

Yes, Serena makes less than half of Maria. That is due to sponsorships. Also, it is not that the businesses are racist and they are not giving contracts to Serena for promoting. Businesses do not see "black" or "white" in a capitalistic market; then only see "green". If the market study indicates that Serena can push their products, I am sure the businesses would be happy to sign up lucrative contracts with Serena just like they do with Maria.

Why is it that such a successful athlete is not able to push products? That is partly due to demographics and partly due to the attitude of the society.

 

[Sundaymorningguy]

Well, I would also like to add in terms of marketing and contracts with companies. That while what the article says is true. There is also the aspect of how many companies have approached Serena, and she has rejected them for whatever reason because she didn't like the company, product or the contract itself. You also have to interject personality and personal goals into the equation as well. Maria and Serena probably have very different goals and ambitions. They have different likes and dislikes. Who knows maybe some of the companies that Maria markets have approached Serena and been rejected. Maybe terms of the contract weren't to Serena's liking. These could be additional factors. Maybe Serena is setting herself up for a different trajectory than Maria in the business world.

 

[special700]

Well, I would also like to add in terms of marketing and contracts with companies. That while what the article says is true. There is also the aspect of how many companies have approached Serena, and she has rejected them for whatever reason because she didn't like the company, product or the contract itself. You also have to interject personality and personal goals into the equation as well. Maria and Serena probably have very different goals and ambitions. They have different likes and dislikes. Who knows maybe some of the companies that Maria markets have approached Serena and been rejected. Maybe terms of the contract weren't to Serena's liking. These could be additional factors. Maybe Serena is setting herself up for a different trajectory than Maria in the business world.

Great post SMG - I've read where Serena has turned down many sponsors because she wanted to concentrate on her tennis and it paid off. I just saw her in a new commercial for Chase.

 

[sk310]

Thank you thank you thank you for posting this. It is so nice to see this subject written about really intelligently and quite frankly academically. Outside of the close knit tennis fan community its not easy to be a Serena Williams fan. When you ask other people what they feel about her you expect that they'll answer with excitement. She's the Tiger Woods of tennis. It's arguable that she's the greatest athlete male or female of her generation in any sport. Yet people answer often that there is something they just don't like about her and they can't quite ever explain why... This article perfectly explains why. These feelings of racism are often so internalized that people don't even know they really have them.

 

[sk310]

I agree with everything the article says. I just want to provide some additional explanation here.
First Serena (and Venus and others) get exactly the same amount of prize money for winning a tourney or reaching a particular stage of it as any other "beautiful white blonde girl" gets it. That in itself is a progress and we should take a minute to appreciate the fact that the society has at least advanced to that stage.

Yes, Serena makes less than half of Maria. That is due to sponsorships. Also, it is not that the businesses are racist and they are not giving contracts to Serena for promoting. Businesses do not see "black" or "white" in a capitalistic market; then only see "green". If the market study indicates that Serena can push their products, I am sure the businesses would be happy to sign up lucrative contracts with Serena just like they do with Maria.

Why is it that such a successful athlete is not able to push products? That is partly due to demographics and partly due to the attitude of the society.

I agree and disagree with you. I do totally agree that marketers mostly follow the zeitgeist and are going to push what makes money. The collective subtle racism that still exists in America is why a Russian woman with no connection to America is still marketed far more heavily to Americans than the greatest American female athlete. However, I don't give marketers a pass. There are plenty of examples of how corporate America can leapfrog social progress and stand at the front lines. Look at how they've marketed Tiger Woods. In my mind there's absolutely no reason other than that she's a double minority (black and a woman) that she wasn't molded to be tennis' Tiger. Another example is how a huge amount of America's biggest and wealthiest companies have come out supporting openly, in marketing materials, gay families and gay marriage. 40% of the country still is against gay marriage and yet these companies are standing at the forefront of pushing the normalization of this issue.

I think women's sports and how they are marketed is still fraught with issues. Most marketers still view most women's sports as not worth their time or money. Tennis has largely pushed through that barrier. I do think marketers, especially to American markets, could have and should have pushed Serena as a savior of American tennis and female sports in general.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Read this article .

Basic Facts (make sure to see the break-up of their earnings):

But it is Sharapova, not Williams, who makes the most money. In 2014, she was listed as Forbes’ highest paid female athlete, earning $24.4 million. Serena earned $22 million.

The difference is endorsements. Sharapova earned $22 million in endorsements along and just $2.4 million in prize money. Williams, dominant on the court, took home $11 million in prize money but just $11 million in endorsements.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I agree with everything the article says. I just want to provide some additional explanation here.
First Serena (and Venus and others) get exactly the same amount of prize money for winning a tourney or reaching a particular stage of it as any other "beautiful white blonde girl" gets it. That in itself is a progress and we should take a minute to appreciate the fact that the society has at least advanced to that stage.

Yes, Serena makes less than half of Maria. That is due to sponsorships. Also, it is not that the businesses are racist and they are not giving contracts to Serena for promoting. Businesses do not see "black" or "white" in a capitalistic market; then only see "green". If the market study indicates that Serena can push their products, I am sure the businesses would be happy to sign up lucrative contracts with Serena just like they do with Maria.

Why is it that such a successful athlete is not able to push products? That is partly due to demographics and partly due to the attitude of the society.

I agree and disagree with you. I do totally agree that marketers mostly follow the zeitgeist and are going to push what makes money. The collective subtle racism that still exists in America is why a Russian woman with no connection to America is still marketed far more heavily to Americans than the greatest American female athlete. However, I don't give marketers a pass. There are plenty of examples of how corporate America can leapfrog social progress and stand at the front lines. Look at how they've marketed Tiger Woods. In my mind there's absolutely no reason other than that she's a double minority (black and a woman) that she wasn't molded to be tennis' Tiger. Another example is how a huge amount of America's biggest and wealthiest companies have come out supporting openly, in marketing materials, gay families and gay marriage. 40% of the country still is against gay marriage and yet these companies are standing at the forefront of pushing the normalization of this issue.

I think women's sports and how they are marketed is still fraught with issues. Most marketers still view most women's sports as not worth their time or money. Tennis has largely pushed through that barrier. I do think marketers, especially to American markets, could have and should have pushed Serena as a savior of American tennis and female sports in general.

I am not claiming that there is no racism in America. I was just trying to dig deeper into the cause of why Serena is making less money.

You are talking about businesses marketing sportspersons. I doubt they do, at least not for the sake of the sportsperson involved. Businesses are basically trying to use the popularity of the sportsperson to peddle their goods. If they think that somebody is sufficiently popular and will be able to peddle their goods, they will go for that person (even if that person is famous just for being famous).

This is not so much about racism and more about sexism in my opinion. In Men's sports, tpically whomever is performing well gets the adulation independent of their looks etc. On the other hand, when it comes to Women's sports, the adulation goes to best combination of "looks" (a subjective biased opinion) and performance. Is not it the very same reason why Wimbledon typically wants to
put female players with good looks on center court. I am not saying this is justified. But, I am saying the primary reason here is more of sexism than racism and the double standards shown w.r.t. Men's and Women's sports.

 

[sk310]

I agree with everything the article says. I just want to provide some additional explanation here.
First Serena (and Venus and others) get exactly the same amount of prize money for winning a tourney or reaching a particular stage of it as any other "beautiful white blonde girl" gets it. That in itself is a progress and we should take a minute to appreciate the fact that the society has at least advanced to that stage.

Yes, Serena makes less than half of Maria. That is due to sponsorships. Also, it is not that the businesses are racist and they are not giving contracts to Serena for promoting. Businesses do not see "black" or "white" in a capitalistic market; then only see "green". If the market study indicates that Serena can push their products, I am sure the businesses would be happy to sign up lucrative contracts with Serena just like they do with Maria.

Why is it that such a successful athlete is not able to push products? That is partly due to demographics and partly due to the attitude of the society.

I agree and disagree with you. I do totally agree that marketers mostly follow the zeitgeist and are going to push what makes money. The collective subtle racism that still exists in America is why a Russian woman with no connection to America is still marketed far more heavily to Americans than the greatest American female athlete. However, I don't give marketers a pass. There are plenty of examples of how corporate America can leapfrog social progress and stand at the front lines. Look at how they've marketed Tiger Woods. In my mind there's absolutely no reason other than that she's a double minority (black and a woman) that she wasn't molded to be tennis' Tiger. Another example is how a huge amount of America's biggest and wealthiest companies have come out supporting openly, in marketing materials, gay families and gay marriage. 40% of the country still is against gay marriage and yet these companies are standing at the forefront of pushing the normalization of this issue.

I think women's sports and how they are marketed is still fraught with issues. Most marketers still view most women's sports as not worth their time or money. Tennis has largely pushed through that barrier. I do think marketers, especially to American markets, could have and should have pushed Serena as a savior of American tennis and female sports in general.

I am not claiming that there is no racism in America. I was just trying to dig deeper into the cause of why Serena is making less money.

You are talking about businesses marketing sportspersons. I doubt they do, at least not for the sake of the sportsperson involved. Businesses are basically trying to use the popularity of the sportsperson to peddle their goods. If they think that somebody is sufficiently popular and will be able to peddle their goods, they will go for that person (even if that person is famous just for being famous).

This is not so much about racism and more about sexism in my opinion. In Men's sports, tpically whomever is performing well gets the adulation independent of their looks etc. On the other hand, when it comes to Women's sports, the adulation goes to best combination of "looks" (a subjective biased opinion) and performance. Is not it the very same reason why Wimbledon typically wants to
put female players with good looks on center court. I am not saying this is justified. But, I am saying the primary reason here is more of sexism than racism and the double standards shown w.r.t. Men's and Women's sports.

I get what you're saying but there's a clear difference you're ignoring. Businesses don't grab onto someone only when they're an established star. Businesses make a judgement call and then ride the wave up. Sharapova was marketed by businesses massively almost as soon as she burst on the scene. The same situation with Tiger Woods. I agree sexism absolutely is at play. Just look at the numbers if Sharapova is only earning in the 20 millions and Federer in the 50s-70s then there's obviously a long way to go on that front also. Still you'd be blind to say that racism isn't at play. When you have a woman who has been chasing history in tennis since 1999 and is the winningest player of her generation and then you have a player who has only won 5 grand slams and earns twice the amount in endorsements and you say it's not about race you're ignoring the big black elephant in the room.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

There are too many issues here. For clarity of discussion, let us leave aside the fact that Men tend to make more money in endorsements than Women. Let us call this one "sexism".

Then "sexism" is not the reason why Serena makes less money as we are only comparing her to Sharapova here. I used "sexism" in my previous post to refer to a different phenomena. That is
the "double standard phenomena" with respect to athletes i.e, Adulation for male athletes goes to
those with good performance in their sport whereas adulation is not always given by the society to female athletes exclusively based on performance. I think this "double standard" is the primary reason why Serena makes less money as opposed to "racism". In other words, if there is a ugly white female cleaning up the record books, she would probably earn very less in endorsements as well.
This is not to say Serena is not beautiful. I am just trying to separate the concerns here.

I do agree with you that businesses also jump on to sportsperson before they are established. In fact, it is to the advantage of the company if they jump on to a sportsperson who is not already established and sign a ten year contract with them. The sportsperson would cost less at that time as they are not established and if they hit it big, the businesses will get lot of good advertisement for relatively cheap money. On the other hand, if the person chosen does not come up big, the money spent on that person will be a waste for the company. This is somewhat like gambling and the companies do this. It would cost way too much to sign up Roger for something now.

 

[sk310]

There are too many issues here. For clarity of discussion, let us leave aside the fact that Men tend to make more money in endorsements than Women. Let us call this one "sexism".

Then "sexism" is not the reason why Serena makes less money as we are only comparing her to Sharapova here. I used "sexism" in my previous post to refer to a different phenomena. That is
the "double standard phenomena" with respect to athletes i.e, Adulation for male athletes goes to
those with good performance in their sport whereas adulation is not always given by the society to female athletes exclusively based on performance. I think this "double standard" is the primary reason why Serena makes less money as opposed to "racism". In other words, if there is a ugly white female cleaning up the record books, she would probably earn very less in endorsements as well.
This is not to say Serena is not beautiful. I am just trying to separate the concerns here.

I do agree with you that businesses also jump on to sportsperson before they are established. In fact, it is to the advantage of the company if they jump on to a sportsperson who is not already established and sign a ten year contract with them. The sportsperson would cost less at that time as they are not established and if they hit it big, the businesses will get lot of good advertisement for relatively cheap money. On the other hand, if the person chosen does not come up big, the money spent on that person will be a waste for the company. This is somewhat like gambling and the companies do this. It would cost way too much to sign up Roger for something now.

I do agree with you that sexism is a huge problem in sports. Still, dealing with discrimination of different kinds is not a 0 sum game. We should be seeking to make sports and sports marketing more equitable in a myriad of ways, not just one.

 

[Federberg]

I agree and disagree with you. I do totally agree that marketers mostly follow the zeitgeist and are going to push what makes money. The collective subtle racism that still exists in America is why a Russian woman with no connection to America is still marketed far more heavily to Americans than the greatest American female athlete. However, I don't give marketers a pass. There are plenty of examples of how corporate America can leapfrog social progress and stand at the front lines. Look at how they've marketed Tiger Woods. In my mind there's absolutely no reason other than that she's a double minority (black and a woman) that she wasn't molded to be tennis' Tiger. Another example is how a huge amount of America's biggest and wealthiest companies have come out supporting openly, in marketing materials, gay families and gay marriage. 40% of the country still is against gay marriage and yet these companies are standing at the forefront of pushing the normalization of this issue.

I think women's sports and how they are marketed is still fraught with issues. Most marketers still view most women's sports as not worth their time or money. Tennis has largely pushed through that barrier. I do think marketers, especially to American markets, could have and should have pushed Serena as a savior of American tennis and female sports in general.

I am not claiming that there is no racism in America. I was just trying to dig deeper into the cause of why Serena is making less money.

You are talking about businesses marketing sportspersons. I doubt they do, at least not for the sake of the sportsperson involved. Businesses are basically trying to use the popularity of the sportsperson to peddle their goods. If they think that somebody is sufficiently popular and will be able to peddle their goods, they will go for that person (even if that person is famous just for being famous).

This is not so much about racism and more about sexism in my opinion. In Men's sports, tpically whomever is performing well gets the adulation independent of their looks etc. On the other hand, when it comes to Women's sports, the adulation goes to best combination of "looks" (a subjective biased opinion) and performance. Is not it the very same reason why Wimbledon typically wants to
put female players with good looks on center court. I am not saying this is justified. But, I am saying the primary reason here is more of sexism than racism and the double standards shown w.r.t. Men's and Women's sports.

I get what you're saying but there's a clear difference you're ignoring. Businesses don't grab onto someone only when they're an established star. Businesses make a judgement call and then ride the wave up. Sharapova was marketed by businesses massively almost as soon as she burst on the scene. The same situation with Tiger Woods. I agree sexism absolutely is at play. Just look at the numbers if Sharapova is only earning in the 20 millions and Federer in the 50s-70s then there's obviously a long way to go on that front also. Still you'd be blind to say that racism isn't at play. When you have a woman who has been chasing history in tennis since 1999 and is the winningest player of her generation and then you have a player who has only won 5 grand slams and earns twice the amount in endorsements and you say it's not about race you're ignoring the big black elephant in the room.

Very interesting discussion. 2 separate issues really.

1, Why is Sharapova perceived as more marketable than Serena? I think this is simple really, and I don't think it's racism as such. Marketers pick their demographic, and like it or now, they believe that a tall blonde beauty is more marketable than an athletic black beauty. For my tastes I find Serena physically more attractive than Sharapova. I don't particularly like either of their personalities, although I prefer Serena's I think she is a naturally more sporting/fair person than Sharapova. Unless marketers come to believe that society is as accepting of black beauty as caucasian, this isn't going to change any time soon. Why would it? There are far more wealthy caucasians than there are black.

2, Why do the women earn less money than the men? First of all... on an absolute basis the men are better athletes. That's just a fact. I'm sure if Serena played 2 sets against Novak she'll do well to even get a game. For that reason male sports will always be considered "superior" to female sports. I also believe that for this reason other considerations come into the marketing of female sports stars, i.e., aesthetics/ looks. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm merely trying to offer up an explanation. This also goes some way to explaining why there is a tendency to want to put the top males on the show courts rather than the top women. I'm not going to lie to you... I've been invited to more corporate sporting events than I care to remember. Including being given an option to watch women's semifinals day or mens semifinals day. There wasn't even a discussion in my mind. I picked the mens. I also prefer ATP to WTA generally, because the quality of the tennis is superior. Funnily enough I didn't feel this way back in the days between Sampras and Federer. I watched far more WTA then than ATP, as it was far more competitive. So it's not a permanent state of mind for me, I just go with the entertainment and quality level.

 

[sk310]

I am not claiming that there is no racism in America. I was just trying to dig deeper into the cause of why Serena is making less money.

You are talking about businesses marketing sportspersons. I doubt they do, at least not for the sake of the sportsperson involved. Businesses are basically trying to use the popularity of the sportsperson to peddle their goods. If they think that somebody is sufficiently popular and will be able to peddle their goods, they will go for that person (even if that person is famous just for being famous).

This is not so much about racism and more about sexism in my opinion. In Men's sports, tpically whomever is performing well gets the adulation independent of their looks etc. On the other hand, when it comes to Women's sports, the adulation goes to best combination of "looks" (a subjective biased opinion) and performance. Is not it the very same reason why Wimbledon typically wants to
put female players with good looks on center court. I am not saying this is justified. But, I am saying the primary reason here is more of sexism than racism and the double standards shown w.r.t. Men's and Women's sports.

I get what you're saying but there's a clear difference you're ignoring. Businesses don't grab onto someone only when they're an established star. Businesses make a judgement call and then ride the wave up. Sharapova was marketed by businesses massively almost as soon as she burst on the scene. The same situation with Tiger Woods. I agree sexism absolutely is at play. Just look at the numbers if Sharapova is only earning in the 20 millions and Federer in the 50s-70s then there's obviously a long way to go on that front also. Still you'd be blind to say that racism isn't at play. When you have a woman who has been chasing history in tennis since 1999 and is the winningest player of her generation and then you have a player who has only won 5 grand slams and earns twice the amount in endorsements and you say it's not about race you're ignoring the big black elephant in the room.

Very interesting discussion. 2 separate issues really.

1, Why is Sharapova perceived as more marketable than Serena? I think this is simple really, and I don't think it's racism as such. Marketers pick their demographic, and like it or now, they believe that a tall blonde beauty is more marketable than an athletic black beauty. For my tastes I find Serena physically more attractive than Sharapova. I don't particularly like either of their personalities, although I prefer Serena's I think she is a naturally more sporting/fair person than Sharapova. Unless marketers come to believe that society is as accepting of black beauty as caucasian, this isn't going to change any time soon. Why would it? There are far more wealthy caucasians than there are black.

2, Why do the women earn less money than the men? First of all... on an absolute basis the men are better athletes. That's just a fact. I'm sure if Serena played 2 sets against Novak she'll do well to even get a game. For that reason male sports will always be considered "superior" to female sports. I also believe that for this reason other considerations come into the marketing of female sports stars, i.e., aesthetics/ looks. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm merely trying to offer up an explanation. This also goes some way to explaining why there is a tendency to want to put the top males on the show courts rather than the top women. I'm not going to lie to you... I've been invited to more corporate sporting events than I care to remember. Including being given an option to watch women's semifinals day or mens semifinals day. There wasn't even a discussion in my mind. I picked the mens. I also prefer ATP to WTA generally, because the quality of the tennis is superior. Funnily enough I didn't feel this way back in the days between Sampras and Federer. I watched far more WTA then than ATP, as it was far more competitive. So it's not a permanent state of mind for me, I just go with the entertainment and quality level.

2. You cannot state an opinion, something that is not measurable quantitatively and say it is a fact. You write very eloquently but you lost me there. The reason men make more money in marketing than women is two fold. The first is that men have been a dominant force in EVERY sphere of human life for pretty much all of human history and that only began to change in the 1960s. Second the only "fact" that can be stated is that more men follow sports more closely than women.

 

[Federberg]

^I would contend that men having greater athletic ability is a fact of life. Please don't misconstrue. I'm not saying marketers making a value judgment on that basis is correct. I am simply stating what I see is happening. You are of course right that men dominate business. It's not clear to me that men necessarily do marketing on that basis. But yes I would agree that because of the way society is at the moment, men have more money so from a capitalist point of view, it would make sense for marketers to chase the money