PDA

View Full Version : Sexism among the WTA Tour: a fact or an urban legend?


Carmen Mairena
Jun 13th, 2006, 08:57 PM
RG women's final: umpired by a man... :retard:

RG men's final: umpired by a... (music please) man!!! :speakles: :retard: :eek:

Is it right for women not to umpire the BIG ONES??? I think NOT! :smash:

timafi
Jun 13th, 2006, 09:03 PM
wrong
didn't A. Lang umpire the Aussie Open finals ? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

TonyP
Jun 13th, 2006, 09:11 PM
Women have umpired French Open finals. Maybe not this year, but in years past.

tennisboi
Jun 13th, 2006, 09:35 PM
Welcome to todays messed up society

VeeDaQueen
Jun 13th, 2006, 09:36 PM
some people just try to find stuff so they can get offended :lol:

cellophane
Jun 13th, 2006, 11:51 PM
Actually from what I've noticed, women umpires never seem to umpire men's matches.

clonesheep
Jun 14th, 2006, 12:33 AM
Actually from what I've noticed, women umpires never seem to umpire men's matches.
It's actually not uncommon for a female umpire to oversee men's matches. I remember (seeing it on TV) a fairly important men's match at one of the major tournaments umpired by Sandra de Jenkin. I remember it because SdJ is so beautiful. :)

spec7er
Jun 14th, 2006, 01:27 AM
Sandra de Jenken always umpires the big matches. I've seen her also umpiring for men's matches. But I can't remember other women umpiring for men.

How do they even pick who would be the umpire for a final? Do they have a list of possible candidates and pick randomly from that list?:confused:

LindsayRulz
Jun 14th, 2006, 02:39 AM
Sandra de Jenken always umpires the big matches. I've seen her also umpiring for men's matches. But I can't remember other women umpiring for men.


True

cellophane
Jun 14th, 2006, 02:43 AM
I didn't mean to say "never"; it's just that you don't see women umpiring for men's matches very often, as with women's matches. At least I've not noticed.

partbrit
Jun 14th, 2006, 03:01 AM
You're right in that you don't see women umpiring men's matches that often. You also don't see ATP members encouraged to do seductive--and in some cases, distasteful--advertising in order to sell the tour (but I had to laugh when I saw the new Roddick Lacoste commercial).

Then there are the people on this board who say that sexism benefits women. They would never say that racism benefits people of color.

But I find that most of the sexism comes from the sports commentators. I wish Kim had slapped Enberg when he said "Can I hold you?" after she asked to hold the microphone at the U.S. Open. Then there's Brad Gilbert, hoping for a "cat fight" between two of the women. And Pam Shriver--when Jon Leach was referred to as Rick Leach's brother--saying "He would hate it a lot more if he were referred to as Mr. Davenport," as if that would be such a terrible thing (she wouldn't be offended if Lindsay were called "Mrs. Leach").

Or how about Brad Gilbert at the French Open, saying that "the lady umpire is coming down to check"? Or Sports Illustrated calling Clijsters "the sportsman"? Or all the bashing of Kim as no longer a "nice girl" once she won the U.S. Open? Or Ted Robinson's reference to the members of the tour as "young ladies"?

Or how about Al Trautwig lying down on the ground next Sharapova while she read a book? Or Jim Courier being all shocked and calling Bovina "aggressive" because she pumped her fiist? Or his saying that meltdowns occur only in the women's game?

LH2HBH
Jun 14th, 2006, 03:14 AM
Women do not umpire ATP matches but both men and women umpire WTA matches

njnetswill
Jun 14th, 2006, 03:29 AM
Er...in what professional sport is the officiating done primarily by women? :confused:

You people need to find something more important to complain about.

partbrit
Jun 14th, 2006, 03:32 AM
in what professional sport is the officiating done primarily by women?

I don't recall anyone calling for officiating to be done "primarily" by women. But you have kind of made the argument for us by begging the question.

Cat's Pajamas
Jun 14th, 2006, 03:33 AM
You're right in that you don't see women umpiring men's matches that often. You also don't see ATP members encouraged to do seductive--and in some cases, distasteful--advertising in order to sell the tour (but I had to laugh when I saw the new Roddick Lacoste commercial).

Then there are the people on this board who say that sexism benefits women. They would never say that racism benefits people of color.

But I find that most of the sexism comes from the sports commentators. I wish Kim had slapped Enberg when he said "Can I hold you?" after she asked to hold the microphone at the U.S. Open. Then there's Brad Gilbert, hoping for a "cat fight" between two of the women. And Pam Shriver--when Jon Leach was referred to as Rick Leach's brother--saying "He would hate it a lot more if he were referred to as Mr. Davenport," as if that would be such a terrible thing (she wouldn't be offended if Lindsay were called "Mrs. Leach").

Or how about Brad Gilbert at the French Open, saying that "the lady umpire is coming down to check"? Or Sports Illustrated calling Clijsters "the sportsman"? Or all the bashing of Kim as no longer a "nice girl" once she won the U.S. Open? Or Ted Robinson's reference to the members of the tour as "young ladies"?

Or how about Al Trautwig lying down on the ground next Sharapova while she read a book? Or Jim Courier being all shocked and calling Bovina "aggressive" because she pumped her fiist? Or his saying that meltdowns occur only in the women's game?


in some of this, I can't find any sexism :shrug:

partbrit
Jun 14th, 2006, 03:35 AM
I'm sorry you can't. It's all there.

njnetswill
Jun 14th, 2006, 03:36 AM
I don't recall anyone calling for officiating to be done "primarily" by women. But you have kind of made the argument for us by begging the question.

Allison Lang has done tons of finals and such. I don't see any sexism.

Cat's Pajamas
Jun 14th, 2006, 03:37 AM
Def the Kim-Brad incident sounds like it but some of it sounds a little over sensitive to me like the young ladies, nice girl, sportsman, or aggresive thing :shrug:

partbrit
Jun 14th, 2006, 03:42 AM
Women are not men. They are "sportswomen." Language is important!

The same commentators would never say "young gentlemen." It's always "girls" or "young ladies," which reduces women to children or "precious things."

And I mentioned the aggression remark because he was so shocked by it, like, oh my god, a girl is being aggressive. He needs to get out more...

cellophane
Jun 14th, 2006, 04:07 AM
I do think you are going overboard somewhat, partbrit, but, hey, I don't know why there aren't more women out there umpiring men's matches.

njnetswill
Jun 14th, 2006, 04:10 AM
There are female refs in the NBA, i know that much. But sports is still a male dominated world, and until there are legions of young women who want to work in the world of pro athletics, you can't expect large numbers or high profile female officials in sport.

partbrit
Jun 14th, 2006, 04:18 AM
I do think you are going overboard somewhat, partbrit, but, hey, I don't know why there aren't more women out there umpiring men's matches.

Language, unlike the trivial thing it is often treated as, is the most important currency we have. It is how we express what we really believe, and how we define others. Of course, context is important, too. If my husband were to come in and see me and one one my friends and say "Hey, what are you girls up to?", that would be an intimacy he has earned as my (feminist) husband. A term of endearment. But when commentators call grown women athletes "girls" and "young ladies" and do not call their male counterparts "boys" and "young gentlemen," that is sexism. One group is treated as something trivial and cute, and the other is taken seriously.

And saying "the lady umpire" (it was Sandra DeJenkin--she has a name) is like saying "that lady lawyer" or "that black doctor." There is no reason to single out anyone's gender or race because it is so "special" that a woman can be a lawyer or an African American can be a doctor. It is patronizing to do so. Gilbert would never say "the gentleman umpire has come down to check the mark."

dreamgoddess099
Jun 14th, 2006, 04:36 AM
Language, unlike the trivial thing it is often treated as, is the most important currency we have. It is how we express what we really believe, and how we define others. Of course, context is important, too. If my husband were to come in and see me and one one my friends and say "Hey, what are you girls up to?", that would be an intimacy he has earned as my (feminist) husband. A term of endearment. But when commentators call grown women athletes "girls" and "young ladies" and do not call their male counterparts "boys" and "young gentlemen," that is sexism. One group is treated as something trivial and cute, and the other is taken seriously.

And saying "the lady umpire" (it was Sandra DeJenkin--she has a name) is like saying "that lady lawyer" or "that black doctor." There is no reason to single out anyone's gender or race because it is so "special" that a woman can be a lawyer or an African American can be a doctor. It is patronizing to do so. Gilbert would never say "the gentleman umpire has come down to check the mark."
:worship: You're right, women are treated as trival and cute, while men are taken more seriously. But at the same time, lots of women have accepted being known as trival and cute, that's all society teaches them they can be.

njnetswill
Jun 14th, 2006, 04:39 AM
If everything anyone ever said was "politically correct" they world would be a boring place. That said, "Lady Umpire" is :retard:. But calling players "girls" is fair game in my book. Who the hell calls them "sportswomen".

partbrit
Jun 14th, 2006, 04:47 AM
Why wouldn't they be called "sportswomen"? They're women. How would men like it if all fair, dedicated athletes were called "sportswomen"? Not much, I don't think.

But it is not about "political correctness," which is a term made up by people who don't want to rid themselves of racist, sexist, homophobic habits. It's about plain old correctness. Women are not men. (I freely acknowledge that some very stupid people, such as the "niggardly" incident employer, have made a mockery over fair and inclusive speech, but that is because they are stupid, not because the concept of fair and inclusive speech is stupid.)

TonyP
Jun 14th, 2006, 02:27 PM
I think the quesion should be, are the players themselves offended by being called girls? Or young women? I can't remember hearing of any protests being mounted by tour players over this issue. In fact, just about the only thing they have protested in recent years is the equal prize money issue.

It kind of seems to me that most of the examples of sexism cited in this thread are really pretty minor issues and in many cases, certainly open to dispute as to whether they are issues at all.

Is Brad Gilbert a little sexist? Probably, but he has said little that is really offensive, at least, not by the examples cited here. If you are going to get into censoring people's speech, then you should come up with stuff that is way more offensive than him referring to a "lady umpire."

There are way too many people today running around abmonishing others over what it is they say. And the problem with it is that when serious issues of discrimination come along, so many people have been turned off by the never ending trivial complaints that the important things wind up getting ignored.

partbrit
Jun 14th, 2006, 03:34 PM
I stand by what I said: Few things are more important than language (counting context, of course). There is a reason African American men didn't want to be called "boy." There is a reason physically handicapped persons complained about being called "cripples."

And as for the lack of public complaints...internalized sexism, like internalized racism and internalized homophobia, is a very powerful force. As another poster said earlier, when you are told from birth that you are second-class, you are likely to believe it and behave accordingly.

A society that treats its girls and women as less than its boys and men will always give itself away with its language. Same goes for race, etc.

Carmen Mairena
Jun 14th, 2006, 04:09 PM
I think I should marry partbrit! :inlove: :hearts: As long as he's a gay man of course! :scared:

partbrit
Jun 14th, 2006, 04:18 PM
Ah, sorry, Polla Muy Tiesa--but if I were, I'd give you a chance, for sure!

Corswandt
Jun 14th, 2006, 04:21 PM
Edited.

TonyP
Jun 14th, 2006, 04:23 PM
But you still can't prove that the "girls" themselves, meaning the players on the WTA tour, are doing any complaining about this issue. I just don't hear it coming out of their mouths.

Feminists -- and I support many of their causes, most specifically equal pay for equal work and the right to hold any job they can perform -- but feminists I think have always been off base on this issue.

Women are the peacocks of our species. They are the most attractive ones and most of them enjoy that distinction. So they like being girls as opposed to be old ladies.

Yes, we live in a society that is much too youth oriented, but there it is, like it or not.

And like it or not, people are going to call women in their teens or twenties girls and most of them are not going to object. They still want a "night out with the girls," and not a "night out with the women."

And FYI, its generally called "a night out with the boys" and not a "night out with the other men."

hablo
Jun 14th, 2006, 04:26 PM
I stand by what I said: Few things are more important than language (counting context, of course). There is a reason African American men didn't want to be called "boy." There is a reason physically handicapped persons complained about being called "cripples."

And as for the lack of public complaints...internalized sexism, like internalized racism and internalized homophobia, is a very powerful force. As another poster said earlier, when you are told from birth that you are second-class, you are likely to believe it and behave accordingly.

A society that treats its girls and women as less than its boys and men will always give itself away with its language. Same goes for race, etc.
I agree with your posts :bowdown:

Rocketta
Jun 14th, 2006, 04:42 PM
Why wouldn't they be called "sportswomen"? They're women. How would men like it if all fair, dedicated athletes were called "sportswomen"? Not much, I don't think.

But it is not about "political correctness," which is a term made up by people who don't want to rid themselves of racist, sexist, homophobic habits. It's about plain old correctness. Women are not men. (I freely acknowledge that some very stupid people, such as the "niggardly" incident employer, have made a mockery over fair and inclusive speech, but that is because they are stupid, not because the concept of fair and inclusive speech is stupid.)

boy that is sooooo true...It's like 'how dare you tell me how you want to be treated and addressed, it's my right to call you and treat you how I want and if you complain you are just being whiny'. :rolleyes:

cellophane
Jun 14th, 2006, 04:43 PM
But it is not about "political correctness," which is a term made up by people who don't want to rid themselves of racist, sexist, homophobic habits.

Oh. Come. On. Seriously, that's ridiculous to generalize like that.

partbrit
Jun 14th, 2006, 04:53 PM
Tony, a "night out with the girls" is fine. I have already made that quite clear. And you are right that many women do not object to being called girls in a non-intimate context. That is part of internalized sexism. Because females have been taught that unless they take on a role of powerlessness, i.e., that of children, they will be rejected by the patriarchy. And they are often are. Those with the power do not like "uppity women," "uppity blacks," etc.

Putting women on a pedestal may look harmless if you are not a woman, but it automatically limits our ability to attain social, political, sexual, and economic power. And it is not done for "nice" reasons: It is done precisely to maintain the current power base in the culture.

The issue of equal pay, while very important, is the tip of the tip of the iceberg of gender inequality. It is a symptom, not a cause. Culture-approved rape and sexual assault; the assumption that women must always give something up and men must never give anything up; talking about important women in terms of their clothes and family lives while important men are talked about in terms of their accomplishments; creating a hostile workplace because of gender, even among such professions as medicine and law, where women feel excluded and put down; the very existence of pornography (as opposed to erotica); suspicion that something is "wrong" with a childless woman but not a childless man; total failure (in the U.S.) of the medical community to even have a clue about women's bodies; the propensity (in the U.S.) for the medical community to actually give harmful information and provide harmful treatments to women in the reproductive health area; the presumption that pharmacists can break their own professional code of ethics to determine which medicines women can have; the extreme and chronic rate of physical attacks on girls and women; the forcing of girls and young women into prostitution and the pornography industry; the insistence by some churches that women continue to have children even if they do not wish to; forced clitorectomies; "honor" killings; "shame" executions; the perception that an assertive women is a "bitch" while an assertive man is a "leader"; murdered at birth because of gender; called a "slut" for liking sex and a "dyke" for turning down sexual advances; not considered an "appropriate" person to make a marriag proposal; considered not "electable" to high office...the treatment of women in the U.S. and the entire world is despicable.

In the U.S. it was the mid-1970s before women could attend law school and medical school without being ridiculed and sexually harrassed by peers and professors until they dropped out. It wasn't until the mid-1970s that many women in the U.S. could make major purchases without their husbands' signatures. It wasn't until the late 1970s that women were allowed to be sportscasters and sportswriters (one of the excuses was "we don't have women's bathrooms"--what happened to all the extra bathrooms they were only too happy to build to keep African Americans away from white people?).

Begging the question--saying it is because it is--is a convenient way to ignore bigotry and to retreat from subverting a cultural paradigm that works for no one, but least of all for women, people of color, and gay people.

Carmen Mairena
Jun 14th, 2006, 05:33 PM
Ah, sorry, Polla Muy Tiesa--but if I were, I'd give you a chance, for sure!

OK thanks! :awww:

Please don't tell me you're a lady! :devil: :hearts: :inlove:

partbrit
Jun 14th, 2006, 05:38 PM
Yes...and a married one, too...

TonyP
Jun 14th, 2006, 06:02 PM
partbrit:

You cover a lot of ground and it would take a long time to rebutt much of what you say and all of it is not without merit. You are correct about some things, in my view, but exaggerate others and fail to acknowledge changes in others.

The big problem I have with a lot of discriminatory claims -- and I am a hard core leftist who thinks George W. Bush should not just be impeached, but probably prosecuted for war crimes --- is that most people who I find shouting about their victimhood don't want to change behavior, they just want to cut a better deal for themselves. "Uppity women?" "Uppity blacks?" Should your goal be having the same right to be as "uppity" as a white male, or is "Uppity behavior" in and of itself wrong?

I find too many feminists condemning male behavior, while demanding the right to engage in that very same behavior. I find far too many African Americans screaming discrimination, but oblivious to any discrimination when it affects anybody but them.

Another thread on this board deals with a black chair umpire who is suing the USTA over discrimination. I have no idea if his claim has merit, but one thing he cites is Lleyton Hewitt's comment during that match with James Blake a few years back. Hewitt accused a black linesperson of being prejudiced.

How dare a white person call a black person prejudiced!

Ironically, I work for a very large media conglomerate and just last week had to attend a seminar on diversity. It was conducted by a black woman. Actually, she was a partially disabled black woman.(No, I am not making this up.) Anyway, the packed room very quickly got her to admit that this seminar, this diversity training, was really being conducted so the corporation could show that it had schooled its employees in diversity issues --just in case.

So, in other words, this seminar was actually just a bit of slight of hand the corporation would use in its own defense if it ever got sued in a discrimination case. The woman conducting the class is a consultant, so she goes from company to company conducting seminars and handed out pre-printed pablum on the issue, but what she is really doing is making a living and she was going to go on making a live, no matter how meaningful -- or how meaningless the instruction was or even -- in this particular, whether what she was doing would actually hurt the case of anyone bringing a discrimination suit against the corporation.

alfajeffster
Jun 14th, 2006, 06:04 PM
Yes...and a married one, too...

A furry-legged, militant, man-hating feminist, but a lady no less...:lol:

(Just kidding BTW- I don't know why, but I'm particularly sarcastic today- must not have used enough eyeliner this morning)

Chrissie-fan
Jun 14th, 2006, 06:04 PM
I do think you are going overboard somewhat, partbrit, but, hey, I don't know why there aren't more women out there umpiring men's matches.

Could simply be a matter of there being more male umpires than females. Not saying that there isn't any sexism in tennis, but tennis is nevertheless one of the few sports where the females get more or less the same amount of attention as the males.

partbrit
Jun 14th, 2006, 06:10 PM
Tony, I don't disagree with much of anything you say. For example, the hostility many African Americans feel toward the gay community really bothers me. And I do not believe that it is helpful for any woman to criticize certain male behavior and then adopt it. That is not effecting change--it is contributing to a patriarchial pattern, in which one has to be dominant, and one submissive.

But that does not take away from the reality that women, throughout the world, are treated as less than fully human. And internalized sexism, like all internalized bigotry, is part of a system of cultural stagnation.

However, when you refer to "the femininsts," you make it clear that we are "the other," and that you do not support social, political, and economic equality for women and girls.

(And I do not know of any changes in the subjects I mentioned; they are all gong on today, just as they were yesterday.)

Rexman
Jun 14th, 2006, 06:50 PM
Does anyone know how many experience female umpires their are compared to male umpires? It could very well be a case of there being more male umpires than female umpires.

and they refer to some of the male players as "A young guy". I don't see anything wrong with calling a female player "A young lady"

Women will be seen as inferior at the majors until they insist on, not only getting equal pay, but equal play. The unequal prize money may well be sexism, but it would be so much easier to call the LTA on it if they played best of five sets instead of three.

TonyP
Jun 14th, 2006, 08:29 PM
partbrit:

I am not viewing feminists as the others, any more than I view civil rights advocates as the others. I do not agree with all feminists or all civil rights advocates on all issues. But I disagree with some in both camps on SOME issues.

And yes, there is change taking place.


Here in tennis, all the slams except Wimbledon now offer equal prize money, even though the men and women do NOT spend an equal amount of time toiling away on the court.

I also think that the media heavily shapes perceptions. It has always been interesting to me that when Hollywood portrays "strong" women, it often shows them kicking as much butt as men do, in other words, engaging in the same kind of violent behavior. It always seemed to me that violence is the least attractive part of male behavior and the last thing women should be trying to emulate.

partbrit
Jun 14th, 2006, 08:35 PM
In that case, Tony, I do ask you to stop referring to "the feminists," if you are indeed one of us. That is all I am saying.

Actually, the Slams do not offer equal prize money. There is a lot of hoop-la about the finalists, but no one else.

Here is how I feel about equal prize money: If women are capable of playing 5 sets, they should play 5 sets and get equal prize money. But if playing 3 sets is, for a woman, physically equal to a man's playing 5 sets, then women should get equal prize money for playing 3 sets.

Chrissie-fan
Jun 15th, 2006, 01:36 AM
I also think that the media heavily shapes perceptions. It has always been interesting to me that when Hollywood portrays "strong" women, it often shows them kicking as much butt as men do, in other words, engaging in the same kind of violent behavior. It always seemed to me that violence is the least attractive part of male behavior and the last thing women should be trying to emulate.

Good point.

meyerpl
Jun 15th, 2006, 02:36 AM
some people just try to find stuff so they can get offended :lol:
......which I find highly offensive. :lol:

switz
Jun 15th, 2006, 02:50 AM
ever thought that maybe there are more male umpires who are experienced and fully deserving of getting the big matches.

Plenty of women have umpired big matches. De Jenkin umpired one of the men's semis at RG this year for you information. Alison Lang, the other British one who retired a couple of years ago and another Australian one have all done women's finals.

it's a non issue and there are much more important things to worry about for women in the world than this.

meyerpl
Jun 15th, 2006, 02:56 AM
You're right in that you don't see women umpiring men's matches that often. You also don't see ATP members encouraged to do seductive--and in some cases, distasteful--advertising in order to sell the tour (but I had to laugh when I saw the new Roddick Lacoste commercial).

Then there are the people on this board who say that sexism benefits women. They would never say that racism benefits people of color.

But I find that most of the sexism comes from the sports commentators. I wish Kim had slapped Enberg when he said "Can I hold you?" after she asked to hold the microphone at the U.S. Open. Then there's Brad Gilbert, hoping for a "cat fight" between two of the women. And Pam Shriver--when Jon Leach was referred to as Rick Leach's brother--saying "He would hate it a lot more if he were referred to as Mr. Davenport," as if that would be such a terrible thing (she wouldn't be offended if Lindsay were called "Mrs. Leach").

Or how about Brad Gilbert at the French Open, saying that "the lady umpire is coming down to check"? Or Sports Illustrated calling Clijsters "the sportsman"? Or all the bashing of Kim as no longer a "nice girl" once she won the U.S. Open? Or Ted Robinson's reference to the members of the tour as "young ladies"?

Or how about Al Trautwig lying down on the ground next Sharapova while she read a book? Or Jim Courier being all shocked and calling Bovina "aggressive" because she pumped her fiist? Or his saying that meltdowns occur only in the women's game?
If being a proponent of equal rights, equal access, equal opportunitues and equal protection under the law makes one a feminist, I'm a staunch, died-in-the-wool feminist!

If going through life with my radar up looking for instances of women being treated different from men makes one a feminist, I am not one. Men and women are different. We think differently, we are built differently, we interact differently, we communicate differently and we have different expectations of ourselves and each-other.

Unless this poster thinks it would be appropriate for Dick Endberg to slap Kim Klijsters if she asked him if she could hold him, he or she is a bit hypocritical in his or her remarks.

meyerpl
Jun 15th, 2006, 03:09 AM
I stand by what I said: Few things are more important than language (counting context, of course). There is a reason African American men didn't want to be called "boy." There is a reason physically handicapped persons complained about being called "cripples."

And as for the lack of public complaints...internalized sexism, like internalized racism and internalized homophobia, is a very powerful force. As another poster said earlier, when you are told from birth that you are second-class, you are likely to believe it and behave accordingly.

A society that treats its girls and women as less than its boys and men will always give itself away with its language. Same goes for race, etc.
I agree with this post, all of it, however; I believe that a society that attempts to treat it's girls and women the same as it's boys and men is going to wind up with a lot of unhappy and confused girls, women, boys and men.

partbrit
Jun 15th, 2006, 03:14 AM
Unless this poster thinks it would be appropriate for Dick Endberg to slap Kim Klijsters if she asked him if she could hold him, he or she is a bit hypocritical in his or her remarks.

Of course I think that would be just as wrong. But how many men have to worry that much about unwanted sexual advances? That's like saying all those white people being followed by security in the department store better make sure they fight back.

And the fact that men and women are different is not at all related to the cultural decision that women are to be treated as less than men.

go hingis
Jun 15th, 2006, 03:16 AM
Sandra De Jenkin umpired the Men's Doubles Final.

For some reason I did feel thruought the match that they didn't show her as much as they usually show the umpires or maybe it was just coincedence that when i wanted to make sure it was Sandra they where showing the crowd.

go hingis
Jun 15th, 2006, 03:20 AM
I can't remember but were we aware the French Open only paid the Champion equal prize money but not the Runner up. Does anyone know if this is also the case at USOpen and AusOpen or is it equal all the way from 1st round to last?

partbrit
Jun 15th, 2006, 03:30 AM
The Australian Open and the U.S. Open offer equal prize money throughout; Wimbledon and the French Open do not, though the French people support it.

meyerpl
Jun 15th, 2006, 03:36 AM
Of course I think that would be just as wrong. But how many men have to worry that much about unwanted sexual advances? That's like saying all those white people being followed by security in the department store better make sure they fight back.

And the fact that men and women are different is not at all related to the cultural decision that women are to be treated as less than men.
First, I agree with about 90 - 95% of what you've written in this thread.
I understand what you said about the importance of language, but I think some of the examples of sexism you cited amount to splitting hairs or are really examples of how women and men interact differently from each other.
I respect you for standing by your statements, and I'll stand by this one: If you think it's O.K. for a woman to slap a man because he says something she doesn't like, I think you are wrong. What kind of message is that sending? I think it's condescending to women, suggesting that they're the weaker sex and incapable of really hurting a big, strong man. It's even viewed as kind of funny when a little lady hauls off and slugs a big oaf of a man. Of course, it's always wrong for a man to hit a woman, because women are weak and frail.

partbrit
Jun 15th, 2006, 03:40 AM
Actually, I said it as an angry figure of speech. I don't really think anyone should ever slap anyone.

meyerpl
Jun 15th, 2006, 03:45 AM
I really disagree with arguments that suggest women should play five set matches in order to earn equal pay. Professional athletes aren't doing hourly wage work or piece work. They are paid for their athletic accomplishments. Should men receive less money for a match that only lasts three or four sets rather than the full five?
In my opinion, the only reason necessary to award equal pay to the men and women who play professional tennis is that it's the right thing to do.

Rocketta
Jun 15th, 2006, 03:51 AM
ever thought that maybe there are more male umpires who are experienced and fully deserving of getting the big matches.

Plenty of women have umpired big matches. De Jenkin umpired one of the men's semis at RG this year for you information. Alison Lang, the other British one who retired a couple of years ago and another Australian one have all done women's finals.

it's a non issue and there are much more important things to worry about for women in the world than this.

I find that interesting that you would say it's a non-issue as a man and all you site is one female umpire doing a men's semi-final.

All these people who say there are more qualified men umpires is the reason fail to ask themselves why are there more male umpires when women make up over half the world's population. Do they even come close to making up half the number of umpires who umpire the big matches or who umpire any matches? Of course not but I guess that's just because women just aren't interested or maybe men are just better...is that what we're suppose to think?

polishprodigy
Jun 15th, 2006, 03:54 AM
I remember seeing De Jenken umpire a Nadal match....I think it was against Djokovic. I recall the commentators noting how it was a first for this to happen at the FO, and I thought "really? about time then!"

meyerpl
Jun 15th, 2006, 03:55 AM
Actually, I said it as an angry figure of speech. I don't really think anyone should ever slap anyone.
I understand that, I do the same thing. Everybody does. Nobody should have to walk around on egg shells, afraid somebody is going to jump all over something they say and point the bony finger of indignation, not even Dick Endberg. :lol:

Seriously, I don't mean to diminish the validity of your point about the power of language. People do need to check their attitudes and prejudices and try to be concious of how their words are perceived by others.

Crazy Canuck
Jun 15th, 2006, 03:55 AM
And as for the lack of public complaints...internalized sexism, like internalized racism and internalized homophobia, is a very powerful force. As another poster said earlier, when you are told from birth that you are second-class, you are likely to believe it and behave accordingly.


:worship:

If I had a penny for everytime that another woman looked digusted and announced that she wasn't a feminist... particularly those women with college degrees, who are regular voters, intend on having their name on a deed someday, etc... well, I'd certainly be posting this from a much nicer computer ;)

meyerpl
Jun 15th, 2006, 04:08 AM
:worship:

If I had a penny for everytime that another woman looked digusted and announced that she wasn't a feminist... particularly those women with college degrees, who are regular voters, intend on having their name on a deed someday, etc... well, I'd certainly be posting this from a much nicer computer ;)
Somehow, during the 1980's, the right-wing successfully managed to vilify the poor and make "liberal" and "feminist" dirty words that nobody wants to be called.

Well, I don't mind saying that I am a feminist! (Sadly, a lot of other dirty words that nobody wants to be called, and for good reasons, aptly apply to me.)

Crazy Canuck
Jun 15th, 2006, 04:12 AM
ever thought that maybe there are more male umpires who are experienced and fully deserving of getting the big matches.



It's probably easier for men to move up the ladder and get the required experience. Hence there being more of them in the occupation.

It's no a "nonissue", as you call it, unless my suspicion is entirely false.

Crazy Canuck
Jun 15th, 2006, 04:21 AM
Somehow, during the 1980's, the right-wing successfully managed to vilify the poor and make "liberal" and "feminist" dirty words that nobody wants to be called.

Well, I don't mind saying that I am a feminist! (Sadly, a lot of other dirty words that nobody wants to be called, and for good reasons, aptly apply to me.)
It's more than just a little unfortunate that there are so many college educated women floating around out there that aren't educated enough in the plight of their own gender to understand that considering themself a "feminist" isn't a bad thing; that to not consider themself one doesn't even make any bloody sense.

I told the last friend of mine who insisted that she wanted nothing to do with that "dirty word" (heh) that I hoped next time she got raped her way home that she didn't intend on reporting it or anything silly like that. If you don't want anything to do with feminism... then you don't want anything to do with feminism. She changed her tune after my lecture :angel:

Oh well.

An even bigger pity is that young women need to educate themselves on the topic, but I'll save my rambles on public education for another day.

TonyP
Jun 15th, 2006, 02:36 PM
Are there more male umpires than female ones? Yes, I guess so. Do women ever get to umpire important matches, like slam finals? Yes, I know they do. Do they ever umpire men's matches? Yes.

Is there still some sexism? Yeah, probably at the All England Club in particular.

Are these major issues? Depends upon the issue. I never thought the equal pay dispute was a big issue, because of the three set vs five set factor. And I don't want to see women playing five sets, not with the injury rate already as high as it is. Make them play five sets, and there won't be enough women standing to fill the draw.

I also don't want to see five sets, because frankly the caliber of big matches on the women's side these days is often pitiful. Give them five sets and you will see individual women racking up 100 or more unforced errors in a match. Some are already hitting 70 in a three setter.

Overall, is tennis one of the best examples of women proving they can build a stand alone sport which operates independently and pulls in a big worldwide following? It not only is, it is practically the only sport in that category, with the exception of golf and I don't know that much about women's golf. It should be noted that in America, the WNBA has always existed due to subsidies from the NBA.

Are there still instances of sexism in tennis? Yeah, probably, but right now, I don't see any major, glaring issues. I don't know what Dick Enberg did to Kim Clijsters, but he is pretty much a senior citizen by now, so I doubht that he was playing to sexually molest Kim and by the looks of Kim, I figure she can probably take care of herself.

Do I consider myself a feminist? I usually don't think of it that way, but hopefully, yes. I know I was trying to defend the rights of women co-workers, including getting them equal pay for work performed, before I ever heard the word feminism.

That, incidentally, doesn't mean there was not the need for forming an official movement. It was needed.

Are men and women different? Yes, very. Those who know me on tennis websites know I am a big Martina Hingis fan. In her recent Sports Illustrated interview, she made an interesting comment. Everyone knows she is a great volleyer and has a fantastic net game. Nine slam doubles titles attest to that. Since her comeback she has come to net a lot more and in my view, that is one of the keys to the success she has enjoyed. If you saw any of her matches at Roland Garros, that was apparent.

IN fact, I think she currently has a better transition game and is better from no-man's land than anybody in tennis with the exception of Federer.

But in the article, she said she didn't play that way before because she is not aggressive by nature. I think that is absolutely fascinating, because I think it is probably true of her. She won five slams, was number one in the world for 209 weeks and made herself a multi-millionairess, all by being a counter puncher, the tennis equivalent of dancing backwards. She has to force herself to come forward.

Crazy Canuck
Jun 15th, 2006, 05:10 PM
The three sets versus five sets argument is really not all that valid, unless it's even an option for them to play 5 sets. Anybody think that the slams would actually go for that one? Yeah, they don't have enough scheduling issues as it is :)

hablo
Jun 15th, 2006, 05:23 PM
Somehow, during the 1980's, the right-wing successfully managed to vilify the poor and make "liberal" and "feminist" dirty words that nobody wants to be called.

Well, I don't mind saying that I am a feminist! (Sadly, a lot of other dirty words that nobody wants to be called, and for good reasons, aptly apply to me.)
good post :bowdown:
I don't know why feminist has become such a taboo word, even among women it seems :shrug:

Dawn Marie
Jun 15th, 2006, 06:49 PM
You're right in that you don't see women umpiring men's matches that often. You also don't see ATP members encouraged to do seductive--and in some cases, distasteful--advertising in order to sell the tour (but I had to laugh when I saw the new Roddick Lacoste commercial).

Then there are the people on this board who say that sexism benefits women. They would never say that racism benefits people of color.

But I find that most of the sexism comes from the sports commentators. I wish Kim had slapped Enberg when he said "Can I hold you?" after she asked to hold the microphone at the U.S. Open. Then there's Brad Gilbert, hoping for a "cat fight" between two of the women. And Pam Shriver--when Jon Leach was referred to as Rick Leach's brother--saying "He would hate it a lot more if he were referred to as Mr. Davenport," as if that would be such a terrible thing (she wouldn't be offended if Lindsay were called "Mrs. Leach").

Or how about Brad Gilbert at the French Open, saying that "the lady umpire is coming down to check"? Or Sports Illustrated calling Clijsters "the sportsman"? Or all the bashing of Kim as no longer a "nice girl" once she won the U.S. Open? Or Ted Robinson's reference to the members of the tour as "young ladies"?

Or how about Al Trautwig lying down on the ground next Sharapova while she read a book? Or Jim Courier being all shocked and calling Bovina "aggressive" because she pumped her fiist? Or his saying that meltdowns occur only in the women's game?

Nice post.:)