Anything you can do, can we really do better? Despite Annie Oakley, Betty Friedan, and Gloria Steinem, the debate over men's versus women's differing abilities and talents and the consequences of these differences continues to rage.

And necessarily so. Men and women have undeniable physical differences, differences which should be acknowledged and celebrated. But when does pointing out differences turn into unfair limitation or discrimination? This fine line lives right in the center of the debate concerning women's and men's tennis.

Today begins the U.S. Open. The world's best male and female tennis players are currently gathered at Flushing Meadows in New York, attempting to climb the ladder that leads to either the men's or women's Center Court final. The winners of these two finals will each take home equivalent sums of $800,000 and the two runners-up will each take home equivalent sums of $425,000. Not bad, huh? Some people think it is.

With definite gender pay gaps in the working world, the U.S. Open has become one of the few organizations that pays its men and women evenly. Ironically, debate has plagued this practice. The tournament's prize money, many say, should be correlated to spectator interest in the sport. They argue that because men's tennis attracts more interest and thus, more profitable advertising spots, men should reap more financial benefits from their play.

But when it comes to the U.S. Open, this argument is fundamentally flawed. Because the men and women share the Flushing Meadows facilities, and because there is no way to determine which sex makes up more of the driving force behind the sales of day-long passes (which give spectators access to all matches -- men's, women's, doubles, and singles alike), there is no basis for the statement that the men's matches are bringing in more money.

And even if there were extensive tracking of which matches are drawing more live and television spectators, it seems that lately, the women are faring as well, if not better, than the men. The talent and personality that currently exists within women's tennis has caused a recent explosion of interest in the sport. Just this year, John McEnroe, who, in the past, has been an outspoken critic of women's tennis and a harsh opponent of equal pay for women and men in tournaments, acknowledged that women's tennis has possibly become more popular than men's. He has retracted many of his former negative statements about women's tennis and has come to the wise conclusion that increased respect for and interest in either women's or men's tennis is just plain good for tennis in general.

So it's settled, then. Women and men in the Open should be equally paid.

Not so fast, warned a friend of mine just the other day, who pointed out that men are actually playing more tennis