Support NeoGAF

[wetflame]

When you said the reverse isn't true, I assume you meant that reporters asking questions to female players do qualify their statements? So I meant that those reporters should stop qualifying there as well.

I'm pretty sure that's the point that's being made - the reporters are being casually sexist by qualifying "female player" for the women and not saying "male player" for the men. Either do it for both or neither.

Edit: also why is male always the first option in a choice about gender when female is first alphabetically?

 

[dno_1966]

If you're a professional journalist get your shit correct.

 

[AoM]

I'm pretty sure that's the point that's being made - the reporters are being casually sexist by qualifying "female player" for the women and not saying "male player" for the men. Either do it for both or neither.

Edit: also why is male always the first option in a choice about gender when female is first alphabetically?

I guess it would depend on each reporter's track record in that regard. If the guy who made the statement to Murray has also made a statement to a female player with the qualification, then call him out on it.

 

[EGM1966]

Good for him and quite right.

The reporter should have qualified male and that way shown recognition of female tennis players. Not doing so isn't being assumptive it's being dismissive.

 

[mjp2417]

I guess it would depend on each reporter's track record in that regard. If the guy who made the statement to Murray has also made a statement to a female player with the qualification, then call him out on it.

It's not Andy Murray's job to annotate some rando's press conference question history. What a bizarre thing to ask of a professional athlete.

 

[AoM]

It's not Andy Murray's job to annotate some rando's press conference question history. What a bizarre thing to ask of a professional athlete.

That imperative wasn't directed toward Murray.

 

[+Aliken+]

Can't stand him but good on him and shame on the reporter to forget 50% of the population in one go.

 

[formasymphonic]

it was just a minor correction. the internet's response was

The saddest thing about this gif is how applicable it is to so many different scenarios

 

[oti]

What's wrong with Murray correcting the reporters?

Nothing. One could argue the context made it pretty clear the reporter was talking about male players, but who cares. Good on him for pointing that out regardless.

 

[Siegcram]

When you said the reverse isn't true, I assume you meant that reporters asking questions to female players do qualify their statements? So I meant that those reporters should stop qualifying there as well.

That doesn't seem very likely.

And as journalist it's better to overqualify than assume anyways.

 

[Ceres]

The status quo is generally ingrained sexism regardless of intent.
I see it in soccer all the time even on simple shit like ussoccer is the US men's team twitter handle and the women have their own designated as ussoccer_wnt.
Default for so many is male but you rarely don't see something specifically called out as a woman's only thing.
Yet sadly if ussoccer was used for both teams you'd see constant replies to anything related to the women's team of "who cares" because those offended men who don't care have to make sure everyone knows how much they don't care.
Surprisingly Canada soccer has gotten away with only one account but likely because their men's team is even worse than ours so they're happy for any success.

 

[weekev]

You could try to use the excuse that in this context the reporters obviously means 'male tennis player', but it simply doesn't hold up, because there's no way in hell Serena or Venus would get the same 'first tennis player' moniker in the same situation. It would 100% be 'the first female tennis player'.

Goes to show how the world still considers the male version of anything as the default. And yes, that is sexism, even if the people engaging in this sort of sexism are numerous and do not have an overt ill will towards women. It's just ingrained in our society.

There are worse things to get worked up over, but you can't deny it's there. Someone casually pointing it out is enough to be eventful and cause polarized reactions.

Yep, this is why Murray pointed it out. The world doesn't treat male and female the same. If the shoe was on the other foot the question would have the word female in there. The reporter hasn't been malicious but fair play to Murray for pointing it out. He wasn't a dick he just simply addressed the casual sexism and moved on. It's a small gesture but an important one given that he's world number 1 so people pay attention to what he says.

 

[Shotgun Kiss]

the other side people arguing that in the context of talking to a male tennis player specifying that they meant men's tennis is uneccesary

That's a fucking stupid argument. Then by that logic, why was it necessary to say "US tennis player" when "player" would have sufficed?


It's also fucking ironic that people who attempt to defend this turn casual sexism into overt sexism.

 

[perfectchaos007]

His mum was/ still is? the womens national team captain (Fed Cup) so I'm not surprised she publicly approved her son's correction of the journalist on social media.

 

[mrklaw]

To me, it was clear that there was no need to qualify the statement given he's addressing a male tennis player.

When Johanna Konta got through to the quarter finals, the BBC kept referring to her as the first female british tennis player since... because thats what the record is - they couldn't say 'first tennis player' because of Murray.

Why would a female player need qualification when they were talking about her win so the context was clear, but a male player doesn't?

It wasn't a big thing but reporting should be consistent. Defaulting to qualifying females and not qualifying males isn't good

 

[weekev]

When Johanna Conta got through to the quarter finals, the BBC kept referring to her as the first female british tennis player since... because thats what the record is - they couldn't say 'first tennis player' because of Murray.

Why would a female player need qualification when they were talking about her win so the context was clear, but a male player doesn't?

It wasn't a big thing but reporting should be consistent. Defaulting to qualifying females and not qualifying males isn't good

Yep and to be fair to the British media, they qualified his first Wimbledon win as the first British male since Fred Perry to win Wimbledon.
Edit btw it's Konta

 

[Timbuktu]

It's really common sense and professionalism. Murray isn't the type to got out of his way to stir up a shit storm.

 

[Condom]

If this is seen as something special or weird already then you really have a fucked up society.

 

[mrklaw]

Yep and to be fair to the British media, they qualified his first Wimbledon win as the first British male since Fred Perry to win Wimbledon.
Edit btw it's Konta

Yeah actually calling out the beeb isn’t fair because they tend to do the same for the Men

 

[Ghost]

You can bet as well that if the BBC had called Konta 'the first British player through to the quarter-finals since *whatever*' these same people calling Murray's comment pointless would be yelling "ANDY MURRAY" at their TVs and writing angry emails to the Daily Mail.

 

[Messofanego]

Alt right/ultra conservatives/MRAs/redpillers/misogynists love getting triggered just as much as the people they hate too!

 

[ReplacementPelican]

-Edit- My first line was wholly inaccurate on reflection.

It was a statement of fact. I'm not sure he was attempting to 'correct' the reporter but add further context to what they're saying. It was quite clear the reporter had no sexist or malicious intentions, they just said something in the context of talking about two male tennis players.

But, I feel like the whole patting him on the back and praising him is a bit far. Treating him as though he's taking down the patriarchy and stopping micro-aggressions.

Then there's the people who have a serious overblown reaction to this being news and just go HAM on the whole MRA, PC culture thing.

I dunno. I just feel like stuff like this is more 'a good thing that happened' than need for excitement and then people being utter cunts about that excitement.

Maybe I'm missing something. I look forward to the Mail pissing itself with rage though.

As an addendum, isn't it these MRA/Anti-PC types that keep calling people snowflakes? I always assumed 'snowflakes' were people that go upset and threw their toys out of the pram all the time but all these people do is get upset about nothing and run to social media to whine and cry. I remember thinking the same with Tomoo Liren, she always called people snowflakes and then almost burst a vein when Kaepernick knelt.

 

[Ishan]

Completely agree with him. If you talk records and tallies you can and should specify male/female. However also it works both ways. You cant say greatest tally ever and not specify which youre talking about.

agree with saying sampras and federer hold the best men's Wimbledon records. But then dont go around saying williams is the greatest tennis player either. Say greatest female . Works both ways.

 

[krang]

This was a poor choice of words which was appropriately corrected.

I don't think this needs to be made a bigger deal than that.

 

[Ishan]

This was a poor choice of words which was appropriately corrected.

I don't think this needs to be made a bigger deal than that.

this essentially

 

[sangreal]

Completely agree with him. If you talk records and tallies you can and should specify male/female. However also it works both ways. You cant say greatest tally ever and not specify which youre talking about.

agree with saying sampras and federer hold the best men's Wimbledon records. But then dont go around saying williams is the greatest tennis player either. Say greatest female . Works both ways.

It doesn't really, because I can say she is the greatest player and mean it across both genders

 

[Fantastapotamus]

Even if you go with the "blablabla talking to make players" thing...how can him correcting that be seen as anything other than "oh, yeah I guess" at the absolute worst.
Jfc

 

[Diprosalic]

Yeah, in Rio when told he was the first person to win 2 gold medals in tennis he corrected the journalist with "Serena and Venus have won about 4 each." Added that bit to the OP.

I totally approve of Murray's feminism and think it's awesome but to be fair to the reporter here Murray is the only player male OR female to have two singles gold medals. Serena and Venus only have 1 singles each and the rest in doubles. In fact about 7 men have two or more gold medals in tennis if you combine them. (Nadal got his second gold a day before that interview)

 

[Always-honest]

Great.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

I think it shows that Murray has enough respect for players like Serenas achievements, that inexplicity reducing them to "yeah but were not talking about women right now" doesn't sit right with him.

And that her level of consistent high performance transcends something that is simply a female achievement, not to be confused with a male achievment.

It's simply a show of respect and acknowledgement that was lost in the journalists question, that he felt belittled the achievements of someone he has respect for.

 

[mocolostrocolos]

Gotta love Murray

 

[Sage00]

I totally approve of Murray's feminism and think it's awesome but to be fair to the reporter here Murray is the only player male OR female to have two singles gold medals. Serena and Venus only have 1 singles each and the rest in doubles. In fact about 7 men (Nadal got his second gold a day before that interview) have two or more gold medals in tennis if you combine them.

Taking that stance means you think doubles tennis isn't on the same level or isn't worth as much as singles, which is why he probably pointed it out. That probably annoys him as much as anything else given his brother is a doubles specialist.

That aside Venus and Serena Williams have more gold medals than any player in history, man or woman. It's an incredible achieve that and 'but only 1 gold medal was in singles and the other THREE GOLD MEDALS were in doubles' is incredibly belittling of that achievement.

Final point is that interviewer, John Inverdale, is a dickhead that should get no benefit of the doubt. Here and here.

 

[Neverforget]

I have a new found respect for the guy, good job pal.

 

[Diprosalic]

Taking that stance means you think doubles tennis isn't on the same level or isn't worth as much as singles,

Well it isn't these days, especially at the olympics since you break up good teams that aren't from the same country. Doubles is (sadly) for players that aren't good enough for singles.

 

[Camper Van Beethoven]

Doubles tennis is nowhere near the level of singles. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

Judging from some FB comments (I know, I know), this has also merged with the often irrational Murray hatred you get from Home Counties types: "Jock bastard", "racist" and that sort of thing - no surprise that some are keen to lump in "SJW" as well.

 

[Bronetta]

I agree it needs more recognition. Women's tennis is music to my ears

 

[*Splinter]

I didn't know is it was possible to be offended by someone correcting someone else's small factual error.

"It didn't need to be stated" bahahahahaha

 

[*Splinter]

I totally approve of Murray's feminism and think it's awesome but to be fair to the reporter here Murray is the only player male OR female to have two singles gold medals. Serena and Venus only have 1 singles each and the rest in doubles. In fact about 7 men have two or more gold medals in tennis if you combine them. (Nadal got his second gold a day before that interview)

If this is the case it sounds like the reporter meant to specify singles medals.

(Still fine for Murray to correct him, and it's only the reporters fault that he didn't guess the actual intended statement. None of this makes the MRA response any less hilariously sad.)

 

[Estoc]

Murray is the best.

Also this gif, just perfect.

 

[Diprosalic]

If this is the case it sounds like the reporter meant to specify singles medals.

(Still fine for Murray to correct him, and it's only the reporters fault that he didn't guess the actual intended statement. None of this makes the MRA response any less hilariously sad.)

I'm totally fine with him pointing it out too but it's also fair that the qualifier should've been "in singles" not "men".

The question was about 2 gold medals and plenty of men won two gold medals in tennis (as said before rafa won his second a day before) only Andy has two in singles.

At the end of the day anything that makes MRA mad is more than fine with me tbh.

 

[moggio]

To me, it was clear that there was no need to qualify the statement given he's addressing a male tennis player.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasure

 

[mclem]

He has previous for doing this, as in 2016 after being told he was the first person to ever win 2 Olympic gold medals in tennis he responded "Venus and Serena have won about 4 each..": https://twitter.com/mc1988/status/765133736405008388

I mentioned this at the time, but I don't think the issue there was sexism but - for want of a better word - doublesism - the doubles game is also belittled somewhat, and the Williams sisters have one singles gold each and three golds playing together.

Excluding doubles also omits a lot of other people; heck, the very first time Tennis was in the Olympics (1896) John Pius Boland got gold in the singles and gold in the men's doubles - and the next Olympics (1900), when women's tennis was first included, Charlotte Cooper won the women's singles and mixed doubles.

Which doesn't preclude it being sexism as well, of course, but given the raft of examples in the doubles game suggests that that was completely off Inverdale's radar.

 

[*Splinter]

I mentioned this at the time, but I don't think the issue there was sexism but - for want of a better word - doublesism - the doubles game is also belittled somewhat, and the Williams sisters have one singles gold each and three golds playing together.

Excluding doubles also omits a lot of other people; heck, the very first time Tennis was in the Olympics (1896) John Pius Boland got gold in the singles and gold in the men's doubles - and the next Olympics (1900), when women's tennis was first included, Charlotte Cooper won the women's singles and mixed doubles.

Which doesn't preclude it being sexism as well, of course, but given the raft of examples in the doubles game suggests that that was completely off Inverdale's radar.

Well either he knew about the doubles and simply forgot to state singles (which honestly seems most likely), or he's both sexist and err... doublist.

 

[mclem]

You can bet as well that if the BBC had called Konta 'the first British player through to the quarter-finals since *whatever*' these same people calling Murray's comment pointless would be yelling "ANDY MURRAY" at their TVs and writing angry emails to the Daily Mail.

Only Connect - BBC quiz show - did a sequences round of 'British Wimbledon Winners' which deliberately treated all disciplines as equal, which highlighted there's a number of names in there you don't necessarily recognise.

Edit: Now I'm trying to remember if it included wheelchair winners.
Edit2: Ah, no; hadn't realised wheelchairs were only added in 2016, and I *think* this question was from something like '14.

 

[LiK]

What he said was correct.

 

[Fred-87]

You could try to use the excuse that in this context the reporters obviously means 'male tennis player', but it simply doesn't hold up, because there's no way in hell Serena or Venus would get the same 'first tennis player' moniker in the same situation. It would 100% be 'the first female tennis player'.

Goes to show how the world still considers the male version of anything as the default. And yes, that is sexism, even if the people engaging in this sort of sexism are numerous and do not have an overt ill will towards women. It's just ingrained in our society.

There are worse things to get worked up over, but you can't deny it's there. Someone casually pointing it out is enough to be eventful and cause polarized reactions.

In football Real Madrid won the first division. The second division was won by Levante. Is it bad to consider winning the first division as default? As long as you respect and mention that what Levante did is great in their own competition then its not wrong finding the first division as default.

Same with tennis. Male tennis is better faster and stronger then womans tennis. But it doesnt mean you dont respect womans tennis. I enjoy watching it. I just see it as first and second division. But i do think its good that Murray corrected the reporter because its important to respect and mention womans tennis.

 

[SpaceWolf]

Awesome work, Andy. The way the journalist phrased that question was totally bizarre.

it was just a minor correction. the internet's response was

This gif is brilliant.

 

[TheBlackMarvel]

In football Real Madrid won the first division. The second division was won by Levante. Is it bad to consider winning the first division as default? As long as you respect and mention that what Levante did is great in their own competition then its not wrong finding the first division as default.

Same with tennis. Male tennis is better faster and stronger then womans tennis. But it doesnt mean you dont respect womans tennis. I enjoy watching it. I just see it as first and second division. But i do think its good that Murray corrected the reporter because its important to respect and mention womans tennis.

This sounds so condescending.

 

[whiskeysailor]

King <3