Tennis...

[Readsalot]

I saw too many tiny men like that umpire as a kid. I'd see them make my mom cry, because she was an easy target, using their tiny power to put her in her place for daring to raise her voice when she objected to the way they dismissed her and refused to listen to her. Then, my dad would show up and suddenly I could see them gulp as they realised who he was and then it was all, "We are so very sorry, it was all a misunderstanding, please understand, we were just following the rules..."

 

Following the rules is fine. Penalizing someone for breaking the rules is fine. Doing it unfairly and only when you feel like it is not.

[Readsalot]

Curious. Forgot to check earlier. When you said bogus feminist rhetoric, did you mean all feminist arguments are empty rhetoric, just Serena's or just in this instance?

[Thor Buttox]

I saw too many tiny men like that umpire as a kid. I'd see them make my mom cry, because she was an easy target, using their tiny power to put her in her place for daring to raise her voice when she objected to the way they dismissed her and refused to listen to her. Then, my dad would show up and suddenly I could see them gulp as they realised who he was and then it was all, "We are so very sorry, it was all a misunderstanding, please understand, we were just following the rules..."

 

Following the rules is fine. Penalizing someone for breaking the rules is fine. Doing it unfairly and only when you feel like it is not.

I totally agree with you. There are people like that who can behave poorly if a woman is involved because they treat them differently. But I have now seen Serena's example over and over and I don't see the harassment, though. Like I said above, the other umpire getting off his chair to coddle Kyrgios is sexist because he would never have done that to a woman (or maybe he would have, but that's a weasel thought) but that umpire's behaviour was contrary to the rules and/or ethics of the game.

 

I'll ask it another way: would you teach your kid to behave as Serena did, or rather to react to someone behaving in that way in a consistent logical way (as the umpire did) ? Which is more likely to result in personal growth?

 

Unless the ump was treating Osaka the same way (ie badly, as a woman) , or her (Osaka's) coach was also coaching and the ump ignored it, that isn't an -ism at all. And even if he did, that is bias, at best.

 

PS: I can agree with James Woods for entirely different reasons. I believe all of us are responsible for our own behaviour but that her behaviour wasn't bad because she was a woman, and not even in spite of her being a woman (which is as sexist), but because her behaviour was terrible, full stop. You could just as easily fall into a 'he was racist' trap because she is an African American - that is at least as valid.

 

What we can do is have a discussion whether it warranted a game default - but that is a different discussion. As in Cornet's case, the rule can be sexist, and by resolving it the Tennis Assoc admitted as much. But unless the response to this situation is to change the rules to allow her (Serena) to behave that way because she is a woman, I submit that the umpire cannot have been sexist.

Edited September 10, 2018 by Thor Buttox

[Thor Buttox]

Curious. Forgot to check earlier. When you said bogus feminist rhetoric, did you mean all feminist arguments are empty rhetoric, just Serena's or just in this instance?

In this instance, circumstantially.

[Readsalot]

I totally agree with you. There are people like that. I have now seen this example over and over and I don't see the harassment, though. Like I said above, the other umpire getting off his chair to coddle Kyrgios is sexist because he would never have done that to a woman (or maybe he would have, but that's a weasel thought) but the umpire's behaviour was contrary to the rules and/or ethics of the moment.

 

I'll ask it another way: would you teach your kid to behave that way, or rather to react to someone behaving in that way in a consistent logical way? Which is more likely to result in personal growth?

 

Unless the ump was treating Osaka the same way, or her coach was also coaching and the ump ignored it, that isn't an -ism at all. And even if he did, that is bias, at best.

 

PS: I can agree with James Woods for entirely different reasons. I believe all of us are responsible for our own behaviour but that her behaviour wasn't bad because she was a woman, and not even in spite of her being a woman (which is as sexist), but because her behaviour was terrible, full stop. You could just as easily fall into a 'he was racist' trap because she was an African American - that is at least as valid.

 

What we can do is have a discussion whether it warranted a game default - but that is a different discussion. As in Cornet's case, the rule can be sexist, and by resolving it the Tennis Assoc admitted as much. But unless the response to this situation is to change the rules to allow her to behave that way because she is a woman, I submit that the umpire cannot have been sexist.

Maybe it's too early but this post doesn't make sense to me either. I'll try reading it again later when I've had some more coffee and have woken up more.

[shaper]

Maybe it's too early but this post doesn't make sense to me either. I'll try reading it again later when I've had some more coffee and have woken up more.

Perhaps if you did not have a bias and look to label everything and try to put an angle on things, it would be easy to understand for what it was.... and hence USTA handing out a fine for the behaviour!

[Readsalot]

Oh great, now the peanut gallery think their opinion should be heard as well.

[Vetplant]

Oh great, now the peanut gallery think their opinion should be heard as well.

"Opinion from the peanut gallery: a piece of insignificant criticism."

 

My dear Readsalot, you are completely.... correct, all of our criticism is insignificant, including you own.

 

Glad you have come to that realization.

[sias]

Oh great, now the peanut gallery think their opinion should be heard as well.

Because his/her view differs from your obviously skewed views?

So let's see:

race card - check

sexist card - check

feminist card - check

mommy card - check

butt-hurt card - check

profesionalism card - uhm..... Nope...

[Readsalot]

"Opinion from the peanut gallery: a piece of insignificant criticism."

 

My dear Readsalot, you are completely.... correct, all of our criticism is insignificant, including you own.

 

Glad you have come to that realization.

I do, indeed, own.

[Readsalot]

 

 

Because his/her view differs from your obviously skewed views?

So let's see:

race card - check

sexist card - check

feminist card - check

mommy card - check

butt-hurt card - check

profesionalism card - uhm..... Nope...

Ooh, is this a game? Lets play...

 

Too dumb to know how differing perspectives/opinions work - check.

Arrogant enough to expect everyone to agree with him/her - check.

 

This is fun!

[fanievb]

[sias]

Ooh, is this a game? Lets play...

 

Too dumb to know how differing perspectives/opinions work - sounds like you

Arrogant enough to expect everyone to agree with him/her - sounds like you...

 

This is fun! Indeed!

The irony!

[Readsalot]

The irony!

Wow. It only took you half an hour to come up with that response? This must be the proudest moment of your life.

[Thor Buttox]

Maybe it's too early but this post doesn't make sense to me either. I'll try reading it again later when I've had some more coffee and have woken up more.

I have edited it fr clarity as it was a bit ambiguous (and my still be., but hopefully not).

[shaper]

Oh great, now the peanut gallery think their opinion should be heard as well.

More factual than a peanut comment... but your bias cannot see through that.... sadly!!

 

The basic facts are that this was a professional umpire doing his job, he was appointed to umpire the match based on his experience and by USTA who out of all the umpires available he was deemed the most capable to do this job.

 

Further, this was one of the most significant matched of the tournament being the women's final and watched not only by millions of viewers around the world, but by critical sports journalists, commentators, USTA, every tennis authority as well as his fellow umpires and peers.

 

Any actions by himself can and will ultimately affect his lively hood as this is his job, so doing his job and being impartial in doing that I would think would be paramount not withstanding his many years of experience, professionalism and dedication to become one of the best umpires to be in a position to umpire this match.

 

His actions have been scrutinized post match by USTA as well as that of Serena and the outcome of which is that USTA handed a fine to Serena for her antics!

 

The only peanut comment is that of yours with regard to a tiny man supposedly throwing his weight around, which shows your bias.

 

Then again to further show your intolerance, in that if no one supports your view that they belong to the peanut gallery. 

 

Your responses show that to undertake further discussion of this with you if futile with the juvenile and rather insulting comments thrown at others who also take you to task on your opinion.

Edited September 10, 2018 by shaper