[GeeTee]

Her responses seemed spot on me too. For once she didn't take the bait the press no doubt throws out in hopes they'll get a juicy quote from her.

For all the criticism sent her way (a good deal justified and a good deal over the top IMO) one thing has stood out to me in all of this over the last few years. Evonne Goolagong. In all the calls to rename Court arena, including Martina's theatrics, no one seems to have bothered to ask Evonne what she thought of all this. And if they did ask she either kept mum or they didn't publish because she has nothing bad to say against Margaret.

She did - for once- resist the bait the press throws her way. She usually can't resist (as I believe she's a very truthful person even though I don't share her beliefs). But good on her for keeping it all about the tennis for once.

Evonne - as an aboriginal - suffered just as much discrimination as LBGQT (etc) back in those 60/70s days but Marg was there to provide support to Evonne in her earliest years on the tour.

Margaret never gets any credit for this support of a minority group but I'm sure Evonne would agree it was a major help for her in those early days. How many American players played with an African-American player in doubles back then 50 years ago? You can't say anyone was supporting a gay player back then by playing with them in doubles cos 99 percent would have denied it (including BJK, Martina etc).

How would/could Evonne ever say that Margaret was a nasty person and her achievements should be ignored - even though she - like many of us - may not agree with Marg's religious views of recent years?

 

[Rollo]

How would/could Evonne ever say that Margaret was a nasty person and her achievements should be ignored - even though she - like many of us - may not agree with Marg's religious views of recent years?

I could imagine someone with a different personality could-but I'm cynical.

The beauty of Evonne is she is the way she is.

Speaking of Court and Goolagong, I love to watch two of their matches I have on video a lot. Both 3 setters. The 1971 Australian Open final and the 1973
US Open final.

 

[samn]

I have always maintained that Margaret Court's tennis accomplishments should be evaluated and respected independently of her pronouncements in her role as a preacher. I used to feel that honours bestowed upon her for her tennis accomplishments were well-deserved and that we needed to separate what she did on the tennis courts from what she's been saying and doing in her current role.

However I have started to question my views and my past opinions on this subject after speaking to friends of mine who are gay or lesbian. Many of them have asked what I feel is a very valid question: would governments or tennis associations be honouring Mrs Court if she had said similarly horrible things about people of colour, especially Black people? What if she had been a male player who had made public statements that were demeaning, insulting to, and ultimately causing damage to the lives of women? Would an unrepentant misogynist be forgiven in the current climate?

Would we be willing to overlook a history of repeated racist, xenophobic, or misogynistic remarks directed at other people? If the answer to that is no, it seems very hypocritical to me that I'd be willing to sweep her bigotry towards gay and lesbian people under the rug. I'm not in the least an advocate of the current 'cancel' culture, but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to at least question whether there can always be a clear separation between the personal and professional lives of people, especially when those people choose to espouse views that have historically been (and continue to be) used to discriminate against and oppress certain groups of people.

I suppose that I agree with (shock of shocks!) Billie Jean King in this matter. Margaret Court, the tennis champion, deserves all the accolades that honour her impressive achievements in the sport, but it should also be acceptable to question her personal views and opinions since she chooses to express them in the public sphere and from a position of influence.

 

[Rollo]

but it should also be acceptable to question her personal views and opinions since she chooses to express them in the public sphere and from a position of influence.

Agree 100!%.

But the whole cancel culture you cite is cancerous IMO. LKK gave us a simple example yesterday of "banning" a persons name. People need to be able to put up with criticism-it's called adulthood. Learn to accept other people's views even when we don't agree with them.

The road we're going down is to call anything the majority deems offensive as "hate speech"-and ban it. And then people are shocked at the inevitable backlash that prodcuces blowhards like Trump or an even more dangerous thing like a Hitler.

Is the Orwell book 1984 even taught anymore?

Court's views might be "hateful" to many, but she's not throwing gays out of second story windows either. They do that in some countries, and I find that a lot more disturbing than "hate speech".

 

[Rollo]

Would an unrepentant misogynist be forgiven in the current climate?

For all the good he did Arthur Ashe was quite derogatory towards women in his day.

 

[Rollo]

You wrote a thoughtful post Samn-just wanted to be clear on that!