The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Forsher]

It is not Serena and Naomi it is Williams and Osaka... same as it is Federer orr Djokovic.

People also do this with FEMALE politicians, hence Jacinda.

[Ostroeuropa]

It is not Serena and Naomi it is Williams and Osaka... same as it is Federer orr Djokovic.

People also do this with FEMALE politicians, hence Jacinda.

Eh, maybe. But someones name is someones name, and with public figures it's a matter of discussing them in the terms by which they are commonly known. While a trend, i'm not convinced it's necessarily an important one, especially within the context of last name changes after marriage which strike me as a potential root for the disparity, with focus on womens first names being more effective for keeping them credited and well known by the name that sticks with them throughout their career as opposed to sudden "Who the fuck is Smith? Oh? The one that used to be Jones?".

I'm not convinced it's worth doing something about until the last name change thing is dealt with.

[Chestaan]

It is not Serena and Naomi it is Williams and Osaka... same as it is Federer orr Djokovic.

People also do this with FEMALE politicians, hence Jacinda.

It does partially make sense for Serena Williams though, if only to differentiate her from her sister. But yeah, overall you're right. It need to be consistent across genders.

[Ostroeuropa]

It is not Serena and Naomi it is Williams and Osaka... same as it is Federer orr Djokovic.

People also do this with FEMALE politicians, hence Jacinda.

It does partially make sense for Serena Williams though, if only to differentiate her from her sister. But yeah, overall you're right. It need to be consistent across genders.

Consistency across genders prior to the last name change thing going away would probably disadvantage women relative to men on that specific point, especially for careers influenced more by recognizability.

In other news, gynocentrism and endlessly focusing on women has led to another crisis situation developing, with fertility experts warning that the current situation is "absurd" and "dangerous" and far more effort needs to be put into combating male infertility, a similar situation to the cancer issue that was allowed to develop over the past few decades.

[Galloism]

far more effort needs to be put into combating male fertility

I think your missed a prefix.

[Ostroeuropa]

far more effort needs to be put into combating male fertility

I think your missed a prefix.

Oops, yeah, i did.

[Forsher]

It is not Serena and Naomi it is Williams and Osaka... same as it is Federer orr Djokovic.

People also do this with FEMALE politicians, hence Jacinda.

Eh, maybe. But someones name is someones name, and with public figures it's a matter of discussing them in the terms by which they are commonly known. While a trend, i'm not convinced it's necessarily an important one, especially within the context of last name changes after marriage which strike me as a potential root for the disparity, with focus on womens first names being more effective for keeping them credited and well known by the name that sticks with them throughout their career as opposed to sudden "Who the fuck is Smith? Oh? The one that used to be Jones?".

I'm not convinced it's worth doing something about until the last name change thing is dealt with.

This is rarely an issue... look at how often actresses get married in Hollywood, for instance. People have professional names. Literally the only person I can think of (off the top of my head) who has been known by one name before getting divorced is Valerie Adams (shotput).

I could also have chosen, for instance, Wozniacki, Azarenka, Sharapova, Halep, Pliskova... even (Sloane) Stephens or (Madison) Keys. What this is about is, to a large extent, celebrification. It's got a gendered element to it too which is, frankly, really concerning when it's politicians (the combination) and this is what catches my eye more (obviously Serena Williams is an oddball among tennis players).

Using surnames reminds us that public figures are worthy of our attention for what they do not who they are. We might compare and contrast Royals who don't really even have surnames (and lesser nobles are often not referred to by their names at all). This is of particular relevance with sports stars who always fall into this weird territory where people wonder if they're role models or not. And when we're talking about this specific incident using Serena rather than Williams (yes, that's correct, Venus Williams does confuse things somewhat but not here) helps her case. Why? Because it plays into the narrative that this is happening on a personal level... not what she did but who she is.

When you look at what happened:

[list][*]rule breaking
[*]racquet breaking
[*"]defamation" and threats[/verbal abuse/list]

it's pretty clear that Serena Williams ought to have been punished. I've seen the suggestion that players are normally warned in verbal exchanges but mostly people have fixated on the comparison (the personal) over the acts themselves. It doesn't matter that, say, Nadal might get away with this (Nick Kgyrios certainly would not). What matters is that an escalating system of punishments is used (and should be used). Serena Williams was losing and rather than developing a strange injury (the conspiracy theory interpretation of a lot of ATP injuries) she had (another) meltdown... which if coaching was allowed probably wouldn't have happened. This happens in sport. Meltdowns, I mean.

It's also important to remember that the ATP, WTA and the Grand Slams are all different and use different rules. If the WTA didn't allow on-court coaching then this probably wouldn't have happened at all, but it does. And for many in the wider tennis community this case then becomes a kind of Scopes Monkey Trial for on-court coaching. We mustn't forget that either... this isn't just mainstream gender (and/or race) politics that non-tennis fans are running away with, there are some longstanding tennis issues tied up in it.

[Tahar Joblis]

It doesn't help that the last name "Williams" isn't very distinctive (common surname).

I've noticed the tendency. (It's not universal to male celebrities; e.g., if Ringo Starr is referred to by one name, it's usually Ringo.)

Some of it might be reinforced by dynastic tendencies; IME, women are much more likely to be found married or related to someone in the same area than men are. In politics, for example, there's a long tradition in the US and elsewhere for wives to take over after their husbands' political careers are over. "Hillary" is much more understandable when "Clinton" is dynastic.

Interestingly enough, in the US, men tend to have a narrower selection of given names. Women vary more within each birth cohort and also from birth cohort to birth cohort. Add all those factors on top of the name-taking tradition (and I'll add that IME women seem more likely to rotate between last names as adults depending on relationships with divorced parents) and I'm not entirely convinced it's an instance of the widespread "men do, women are" dichotomy that we see in so many other areas.

[Forsher]

I'm not entirely convinced it's an instance of the widespread "men do, women are" dichotomy that we see in so many other areas.

Lots of good points in the rest of the post but I just want to say two things.

Firstly, speaking as a non-American who cannot remember the Bill Clinton years whatsoever (well, I'm sure there's the odd memory from the '90s but I certainly wasn't a politically active toddler)... when I hear Clinton I think Hillary Clinton first. This does not mean I remember that she's a 1 L Hillary, though.

Secondly, if this specific section was made with reference to my previous post there are three specific things I want to say:

• I did not think of this abstract point. I am not sure I've ever thought of things this way.
• As I was writing that out I did think that I was perhaps veering towards a pro-dehumanisation argument, as in we should forget entirely the person itself.
  • One this point it may be important to note that in NZ whips routinely cast votes for the entirety of the MPs of their party and with the anti waka jumping farce set to return the value of the individual MP is set to further decrease.
• My intended point was that using first names creates the "are" whereas using surnames creates a "do" and that thinking in terms of "doing" is vastly preferable (especially for politicians).
  • I should definitely point out that I was a very embittered voter in the last election... seeing for a long time all our parties as political evils... and I am thoroughly unimpressed with, well, most things our current govt. is doing (like, their support of Light Rail I like, the CPTPP is all good and I don't actively hate fees free tertiary study even if I know it's better to address living costs but other than that everything mooted and/or done is uncool to evil And National would be just as bad if not worse!). Jacinda Ardern is, of course, Jacindamania.
  • The point is that I have an ulterior motive in this "use last names" argument.

p.s. domestic violence accused (?) spouse murders estranged partner is custody exchange during custody dispute, in front of children with a gun in a carpark... according to this article

[Ostroeuropa]

Portrayal of successful black people as "oreos" and "Not really black" and so on has negative effects on the black community, its behaviors, and aspirations.

The portrayal of nerds is similar for men in general and is part of misandry. If we look at the reading rates and level of interest in those kind of activities, it's possible to conclude this is one reason for the boys crisis in education.

As usual we see that the treatment of men and minorities is similar and they are placed in similar dynamics, as is to be expected from two oppressed groups.

The portrayal of men and minorities interested in learning and so on is starkly different than the portrayal of women doing so, but bare resemblance to eachother.

[Liriena]

The portrayal of nerds is similar for men in general and is part of misandry.

Are we talking about stuff like how Big Bang Theory makes nerds look like lovably terrible people?

[Ostroeuropa]

The portrayal of nerds is similar for men in general and is part of misandry.

Are we talking about stuff like how Big Bang Theory makes nerds look like lovably terrible people?

In general the media portrayal of them and minorities/men in general devoted to study or intellectual pursuits as well as cultural and social narratives about those groups, most notable when compared to portrayals of women doing the same.

[Communist Sovietics]

THE NATIONSTATES FEMINIST THREAD III

---

(Image)

---

Mission
This thread is dedicated to supporting feminism and the promotion of women's rights; it is a place to educate, uplift and nurture the younger generations. It is also the catch-all for feminist discussion.

Some topics you may encounter here are...

- equality and civil rights for women
- pro-choice; the right to reproductive health care
- lesbian, bisexual and transwoman rights
- non-violence and the eradication of violence against women
- asinine things Trump has done to set back women or strip away womens freedoms

Some behaviors that will not be tolerated here are...

- misandry and/or misogyny
- all x are y ("all feminists are lesbians"; "all feminists hate men"; "all men want to oppress women"; "all feminists [insert whatever]"; "all men's rights supporters are [insert whatever]")
- anti-feminist rants (go make your own damn thread for that)
- posting links to fake news and op-eds to support your argument - do your damn research first and cite credible sources!
- trolling, baiting, flaming, harassing or any other behavior deemed unacceptable on NationStates

---

Links

Please send a TG to me if you would like an organization listed, or if you have links to resource sites or other information.

Women's Rights Agencies, Groups and Organizations

Feminist Majority Foundation
American Association of University Women
American Medical Women's Association
Association of Libertarian Feminists
Association for Women in Communications
The Center for Women's Business Research
Equal Rights Advocates
Financial Women's Association
Girls Incorporated
League of Women Voters (US)
London Feminist Network
National Association for Female Executives
National Association of Women Business Owners
National Council of Jewish Women
National Council of Negro Women
National Federation of Democratic Women
National Federation of Republican Women
National Organization for Women
National Women's Business Council
UK Feminista
Women Impacting Public Policy
Women in Technology International
Womens Sports Foundation
Zonta International

Women's Health, Victim Assistance, Support

Abusive Red Flags
Breast Cancer Awareness and Support
Domestic Abuse - Victim Support (UK)
Domestic Shelters - location service
National Ovarian Cancer Coalition
RAINN (RAINN created and operates the National Sexual Assault Hotline in the US - 800.656.HOPE)
Single Mother Help - grants and assistance

This section exists because the Men's Rights thread has fallen into disuse. We can not look at women's freedoms and rights without also looking at men's. We must cast light on problems that plague both, such as rape and molestation. I'm willing to post additional links if you telegram them to me. I will not post links to extremist MRA sites. If one of the listed organizations supports extremism, please notify me and I will take it down.

(Thank you, Cerillium, for contributing the majority of these.)

Men's Rights Organizations, Agencies, Misc

All India Men's Welfare Association
American Journal of Men's Health | SAGE Journals
American Men's Studies Association
Canadian Association for Equality
The Good Men Project
National Center for Men
National Coalition for Men
Wiki: Men's Rights Movement

Men's Health, Victim Assistance, Suicide Prevention

Dads in Distress (AU)
Domestic Abuse - Victim Support (UK)
Mankind Initiative (UK)
Men's Health Network
No-Shave November
Pandora's Project
RAINN (RAINN created and operates the National Sexual Assault Hotline in the US - 800.656.HOPE)
Survivors UK
Us Too - International Prostate Cancer Education & Support Network

Parenting Support

American Coalition for Fathers and Children
Dads Divorce
National Fatherhood Initiative
Rights of Unmarried Fathers (US)
Only Dads
Wiki: Fathers' Rights Movement
Wiki: Father's Rights Movement by Country

Blogs

Everyday Feminism
Love, Joy, Feminism

Journals and Books

European Journal of Women's Studies
Feminist Press
Psychology of Women Quarterly
Women's Studies Quarterly

Feminist Perspective Scale

4 June 2015 update
Fris and Mod Team Address Recent Thread Lock and Unlock:

*blushes at the compliment*

An excellent point was raised above. Once again, let's continue to strive to express things in a way that engages and encourages dialog.

Also... please don't hesitate to send links to resources. I'd love to add them to the OP.

5 February, 2017 update
The NS Mens Rights thread has fallen into disuse. It was a place to promote constructive and civil discussion on the issues facing men as as:

- homelessness and corresponding difficulty in accessing shelters
- mental health and suicide
- criminal sentencing
- access to children and single parent custody
- disparity in education
- vilification (such as but not limited to a presumption of guilt in domestic violence)
- recognition of male victims of rape
- uneven distribution in workplace deaths

Please contact the OP, Hirota, for more information. Better yet, start a new one.

I am not going to discourage discussion here regarding the above topics, however, if they are presented in a tone that allows for discussion. That said, the Feminist Megathread is predominantly a place to discuss feminism, and an MRM thread is better suited for providing resources for men and in support of men.

It would be nice to have a place men and youth can turn to for peer support, information, and discussion without being hounded by radfems. It absolutely disgusts me when people can not see beyond their personal agendas and thus turn a blind eye on suffering, injustice, and solvable problems.

The NationStates Feminist Thread
The NationStates Feminist Thread II

---

Let's set the tone for the thread.

Yes, I certainly am... although I don't invest much time into arguing those opinions online. The reason I volunteered to make this thread is twofold: I'm not heavily involved in the heated feminist discussions in NSG, and I'm known for my patience and fairness, ergo my motive is simply to promote feminism in its myriad of forms rather than to promote only my opinions on what feminism is or isn't.

One of the things we frequently see on forums is the disparagement of those that don't promote our particular principles. "You aren't a feminist if you don't embrace [fill in the flavor]." People form a conception of what we are and what we should believe without ever realizing that feminism is profoundly diverse.

Amazon feminism
Analytical feminism
Anarcha-feminism
Atheist feminism
Black Feminism
Chicana feminism
Christian feminism
Conservative feminism
Cultural feminism
Cyber feminism
Difference feminism
Equity and Gender Feminism
Fat feminism
French feminism
Global feminism
Hip-hop feminism
Individualist feminism
Islamic feminism
Jewish feminism
Lesbian feminism
Lipstick feminism
Liberal feminism
Material feminism
Marxist feminism
Mormon feminism
Networked feminism
Neofeminism
New feminism
Postcolonial feminism
Postmodern feminism
Post-structural feminism
Pro-feminism
Pro-life feminism
Radical feminism
Separatist feminism
Sex-positive feminism
Sikh feminism
Socialist feminism
Standpoint feminism
State feminism
Structuralist feminism
Third Wave Feminism
Transfeminism
Transnational feminism

Disagreements between feminists over principles are mostly due to that rich diversity within the feminist movement. People are welcome to promote their views here, by the way, provided they conform to NS policy. However, for the sake of this thread, we should endeavor to agree that we disagree on what exactly is the best principle and practice. We are not here to convert anyone to our specific approach to feminism. We are here to advocate women's rights and to support feminism in general. (er... no pun intended!)

A quick reminder: Moderation gave this thread the nod however our ability to keep it functioning rests on our shoulders. Please be civil towards one another.

---

im agree

[Ostroeuropa]

Now that some papers are pointing out that feminist lobbyists and journalists lied constantly and to everyone when they said Umpires discriminate against women (Itself something that was made the focus instead of Serena's abusive and toxic behavior that would have gotten any man pilloried if he behaved that way to a woman, all the while using lies about how women are oppressed to excuse her abuse of others) and that Umpires, in fact, punish men more often than women, who wants to take any bets that all the people who geared up for an assault on Tennis to """Make things equal""" suddenly disappear into the mist.

They were mobilized and organized for it. Does the sexism suddenly not matter to them when it turns out it's against men instead of women?

When they drop the conversation they started because it goes somewhere they don't want to talk about and instead find some other womens issue to fabricate or exaggerate, it will be yet another confirmation that their pretense to care about equality and "care about men too" is nothing more than gaslighting.

They sure give a fuck about sexism in tennis, right up until its in womens favor. Was it because it was never them caring deeply about equality, but expressing gynocentric chauvinism, as they have wherever their influence has been allowed to fester like in DV, rape and so on?

I think so. We'll witness another data point in favor of that notion here in this issue from their sudden abandonment of the topic. We're about to see clear confirmation of the character and nature of this movement. There's a lot of you that are still in denial over it, care to explain how you ignore this kind of shit happening constantly?

[Forsher]

Now that some papers are pointing out that feminist lobbyists and journalists lied constantly and to everyone when they said Umpires discriminate against women (Itself something that was made the focus instead of Serena's abusive and toxic behavior that would have gotten any man pilloried if he behaved that way to a woman, all the while using lies about how women are oppressed to excuse her abuse of others) and that Umpires, in fact, punish men more often than women, who wants to take any bets that all the people who geared up for an assault on Tennis to """Make things equal""" suddenly disappear into the mist.

They were mobilized and organized for it. Does the sexism suddenly not matter to them when it turns out it's against men instead of women?

When they drop the conversation they started because it goes somewhere they don't want to talk about and instead find some other womens issue to fabricate or exaggerate, it will be yet another confirmation that their pretense to care about equality and "care about men too" is nothing more than gaslighting.

They sure give a fuck about sexism in tennis, right up until its in womens favor. Was it because it was never them caring deeply about equality, but expressing gynocentric chauvinism, as they have wherever their influence has been allowed to fester like in DV, rape and so on?

I think so. We'll witness another data point in favor of that notion here in this issue from their sudden abandonment of the topic. We're about to see clear confirmation of the character and nature of this movement. There's a lot of you that are still in denial over it, care to explain how you ignore this kind of shit happening constantly?

You got links? Well, I mean, you probably do... I just want to read them.

However, you're ignoring that there were a lot of tennis centred issues that ballooned here. I mean, sure, people want to talk about Alize Cornet's shirt but those are... WTA rules... and people want to talk about the issue of on-court coaching... again WTA rules (iirc ATP always bans it¹)... but (probably) you can get somewhere faster by ignoring the intervening WTA, pump up support (credibility) by crying sexism (gotta go mainstream) so when you (Ostro) want to then say, "Woah, look at how the conversation has disappeared" you've got a problem. Why? Because this is GamerGate all over again... except the WTA's problematic rules is "ethics in gaming journalism," what the thing is (quote unquote) really about and when you strip out everything else it turns out people just don't care about that.¹ Remove the sexism claim, which wasn't the main idea in the first place at the centre of the circle, and all you're left with is long-standing contentious issues (and so interest) in the world's fourth most wealth classes sport (after skiing, golf and polo).

¹ Strictly speaking, it's Grand Slam rules. I really should look up the ATP thing because it's advantageous to the point that it's the WTA who's creating the problem. If they were like the Grand Slams and banned on-court coaching, Williams wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. But they do allow it, which creates a "Hang on, should this rule even exist?" There are very few people who disagree that (the notoriously strict) Ramos made wrong calls by the letter of the laws. What gets them past this is that they believe the rules to be fundamentally unjust creating a touchpoint (largely because the victim is a notoriously poor loser keen to muddy the waters).

² And, indeed, once long enough for self-generating outrage articles to die down had past GamerGate just disappears because all that was left were the people who were really insistent about ethical standards that were... in another close parallel... not really that relevant to the instigating incident (which was more a bad breakup, c.f. Williams' meltdown just so happened to be sparked by a contentious issue just as how players in that breakup just so happened to be journalists and developers). People care as much for ethics as they do tennis.

[Tahar Joblis]

The Serena Williams angry-feminists-tennis thing didn't come out of the blue with the fines, speaking as a non-tennis-watching person. It started with feminist engagement on the issue of Serena Williams not being able to wear her "Blank Panther" catsuit due to a new dress code. (Yes, that's basically the first description I got of it from feminists.)

Women not being able to wear the clothing they want to wear is always a big hot-button to push for getting feminist engagement. Add in that the suit was supposed to have medical benefits in terms of helping to prevent blood clots and the idea that the rules were entirely about her (which may be true) and the outrage was well underway with not terrible reason. She took to the court wearing a black tutu, and so a bunch of feminists put black tutus on themselves, their dogs, cats, kids, et cetera and posted it on twitter.

By the time she got fined, feminists were already all primed up and angry at "sexist tennis officials."

[Petrasylvania]

Shouldn't be hard to figure out who wished Bobby Riggs put Billie Jean King In Her Place.

[Proctopeo]

Shouldn't be hard to figure out who wished Bobby Riggs put Billie Jean King In Her Place.

The hell are you on about now?

[Luminesa]

The Serena Williams angry-feminists-tennis thing didn't come out of the blue with the fines, speaking as a non-tennis-watching person. It started with feminist engagement on the issue of Serena Williams not being able to wear her "Blank Panther" catsuit due to a new dress code. (Yes, that's basically the first description I got of it from feminists.)

Women not being able to wear the clothing they want to wear is always a big hot-button to push for getting feminist engagement. Add in that the suit was supposed to have medical benefits in terms of helping to prevent blood clots and the idea that the rules were entirely about her (which may be true) and the outrage was well underway with not terrible reason. She took to the court wearing a black tutu, and so a bunch of feminists put black tutus on themselves, their dogs, cats, kids, et cetera and posted it on twitter.

By the time she got fined, feminists were already all primed up and angry at "sexist tennis officials."

For some reason I had thought the umpire was a woman.

It’s weird how she at first seemed to take it all in stride, like a responsible individual...and then the next day she started talking about sexism. Do you think it’s because she had all that social media support?

[Albrenia]

I'm still baffled at how enforcing the existing rules in a female vs female contest is sexist. Serena Williams deserved what she received and acted like a spoiled brat, from what I could see.

[Forsher]

The Serena Williams angry-feminists-tennis thing didn't come out of the blue with the fines, speaking as a non-tennis-watching person. It started with feminist engagement on the issue of Serena Williams not being able to wear her "Blank Panther" catsuit due to a new dress code. (Yes, that's basically the first description I got of it from feminists.)

Women not being able to wear the clothing they want to wear is always a big hot-button to push for getting feminist engagement. Add in that the suit was supposed to have medical benefits in terms of helping to prevent blood clots and the idea that the rules were entirely about her (which may be true) and the outrage was well underway with not terrible reason. She took to the court wearing a black tutu, and so a bunch of feminists put black tutus on themselves, their dogs, cats, kids, et cetera and posted it on twitter.

By the time she got fined, feminists were already all primed up and angry at "sexist tennis officials."

That's true.

It's like the least significant thing I can think of though because my immediate reaction is, "lol, Wimbledon" which is very strict and completely controls my expectations about these matters... totally different referent/norm set.

[Des-Bal]

Shouldn't be hard to figure out who wished Bobby Riggs put Billie Jean King In Her Place.

The hell are you on about now?

Billie Jean King played Bobby Riggs in tennis in a match called the battle of the sexes. He's saying that anyone who doesnt think that a woman being required to follow the rules of a women's tennis match is rabid sexism is themselves a sexist who wants to see women fail. Now if he said that flat out, or worse actually responded to something an individual poster said he would be made to look ridiculous. Instead of engaging the conversation or making a coherent argument he just made a glib noise at nobody in particular that added nothing to the conversation, basically just loudly avoiding the subject.

[Tahar Joblis]

The Serena Williams angry-feminists-tennis thing didn't come out of the blue with the fines, speaking as a non-tennis-watching person. It started with feminist engagement on the issue of Serena Williams not being able to wear her "Blank Panther" catsuit due to a new dress code. (Yes, that's basically the first description I got of it from feminists.)

Women not being able to wear the clothing they want to wear is always a big hot-button to push for getting feminist engagement. Add in that the suit was supposed to have medical benefits in terms of helping to prevent blood clots and the idea that the rules were entirely about her (which may be true) and the outrage was well underway with not terrible reason. She took to the court wearing a black tutu, and so a bunch of feminists put black tutus on themselves, their dogs, cats, kids, et cetera and posted it on twitter.

By the time she got fined, feminists were already all primed up and angry at "sexist tennis officials."

For some reason I had thought the umpire was a woman.

It’s weird how she at first seemed to take it all in stride, like a responsible individual...and then the next day she started talking about sexism. Do you think it’s because she had all that social media support?

Well, I didn't know that she "at first seemed to take it all in stride," but if she did change course, I would imagine it would have something to do with the legion of feminists on Twitter who were ascribing it to sexism as soon as they heard of it.

From my perspective as someone who doesn't watch tennis but is in on the feminist communications loop, the first I heard of the penalty was in the context of people calling it sexism/racism. That was pretty much live during the match - the early posts I saw cross my feeds were wondering if she would be able to come back and win the match anyway in spite of the penalty. Like I said, feminists were primed to call it sexist immediately.

The hell are you on about now?

Billie Jean King played Bobby Riggs in tennis in a match called the battle of the sexes. He's saying that anyone who doesnt think that a woman being required to follow the rules of a women's tennis match is rabid sexism is themselves a sexist who wants to see women fail. Now if he said that flat out, or worse actually responded to something an individual poster said he would be made to look ridiculous. Instead of engaging the conversation or making a coherent argument he just made a glib noise at nobody in particular that added nothing to the conversation, basically just loudly avoiding the subject.

Vaguely relevant tie-in:

https://www.itftennis.com/news/275503.aspx
https://www.theguardian.com/observer/os ... 62,00.html

Basically, the Venus sisters thought they could take a male player outside of the top 200; then-#203-ranked Kaarsten Braasch took them up on the challenge and won. Not very widely publicized.

[Costa Fierro]

Asia Argento doing God's work.

[Torrocca]

Asia Argento doing God's work.

Imgur photo caption: "Women NEVER know when to quit and shut up"