The Rambles of Neil Monnery

Another pointless voice in the vast ocean that is the interweb

The ‘casual sexism’ of Andy Murray’s win stopping 77 years of hurt.

with 5 comments

My blood people. My blood. You have endangered that blood by trying to make it boil. All afternoon and evening last night and now this morning. I need a hot tub to relax in (well ok I just want a hot tub and think that this would be the perfect excuse) but what has got my blood boiling you ask? The faux sexism regarding Andy Murray’s win at Wimbledon yesterday.

You see it has been 77 years since a British man has held aloft the Wimbledon Men’s Singles trophy. The thing is though instead of enjoying that triumph people are looking for every way to attack and use this victory to make their point. Twitter was full of ‘Don’t you remember Virginia Wade’ such quotes yesterday as she was the last woman to hold aloft the Wimbledon Women’s Singles trophy to have hailed from the British Isles and she did so in 1977, which as basic mathematicians will tell you is more recent than 1936.

Now that is a fine point but if we are looking at all British victories at Wimbledon in the main events (singles and doubles for both men and women as well as mixed) then of course it was only last year when Jonathan Marray held aloft a Wimbledon trophy having won the Men’s Doubles. In 2007 Andy’s own brother lifted the Mixed Doubles trophy and if you really want to be pedantic and say that they had help from non-British partners then go back to 1987 when Jo Durie and Jeremy Bates were British winners of the Mixed Doubles at SW19.

Stephen Tall today blogged about the headline in The Times today which was ‘Murray ends 77-year wait for British win’ and exclaims As if it would have killed the headline writer to say 36 years (accurate) instead of 77 (inaccurate). Well Stephen as you well know 36 is not accurate. It cannot be accurate. The only accurate responses are either one year or 77. At no point does the headline writer refer to singles play so it either has to be one (the last British winner of any sort) or 77 (the last Men’s winner) you can’t just decide that singles play was intimated because it fits your point.

See this is the type of thing I have seen for the majority of the past 24 hours. People manipulate things to fit their own agenda or point. Facts get thrown out of the window and accuracy that people are pleading for is something they have missed entirely. Now if anyone – whether face to face or in the media – says that Andy Murray’s win ended 77 of singles hurt at Wimbledon for British players then that would be inaccurate and sexist. If they say that Andy Murray’s win ended British hurt at Wimbledon then either they mean the Men’s singles or instead of being sexist they just don’t know about Jonathan Marray, Jamie Murray, Jo Durie, Jeremy Bates, Virginia Wade etc.

The thing is folks I have yet to see any commentator, yet to see any media outlet, yet to speak to anyone – let me repeat that – anyone – who has said that Andy Murray’s win ended 77 of singles hurt at Wimbledon for British players. Not one. They have either just said hurt at Wimbledon or hurt in the Men’s singles at Wimbledon. So either they are correct or they don’t care about all other events about from the Men’s singles including Men’s doubles and male participants in the Mixed doubles.

However why let facts get in the way of faux outrage. This is why sexism kills me. People will see sexism in everything. I know people who think holding a door open for a woman is sexist. I know of people who don’t. I know of people who thought it was sexist that the Men’s marathon awards ceremony at the Olympics was during the Closing Ceremony. They thought women should have just as much right to the final awards ceremony as men. So do these people think that the Women’s Wimbledon Final should be played on the same day as the Men? Should they be played at the same time and given equal billing? If they are played on the same day and the Women’s final is first then is it sexist and demeaning and making the Men out to be more important? At Wimbledon women are asked to play back-to-back days (Monday/Tuesday of the second week) whereas men aren’t. Some say that is sexist.

I could go on and on but if you are to plead sexism – and we all depressingly know that there is more than enough sexism to go around – but if you are to see sexism then actually find something sexist to be mad at. Don’t manipulate a story to fit your agenda. As for Stephen’s take on would it kill the headline writer to say 36 years which would’ve been accurate. If Stephen can point out in the headline where it says ‘singles’ then I’ll grant him that it is casual sexism. However he won’t be able to so it cannot be sexist. Either it is ignoring all men and women who have won Wimbledon trophies since 1936 or it is talking about the Men’s Singles. It cannot be anything else.

Who cares about facts anyway. Outrage people. Outrage!

I hope you enjoyed this blog post. Please leave any comments or contact me directly via the E-Mail Me link on the Right Hand Nav. You can stay in touch with the blog following me on Twitter or by liking the blog on Facebook. Please share this content via the Social Media links below if you think anyone else would enjoy reading.

Written by neilmonnery

July 8th, 2013 at 9:57 am

Posted in News,Other Sport

Tagged with ,

5 Responses to 'The ‘casual sexism’ of Andy Murray’s win stopping 77 years of hurt.'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'The ‘casual sexism’ of Andy Murray’s win stopping 77 years of hurt.'.

  1. I half agree. For me the thing is that the focus is on the men’s singles game and very little focus on any of the other events, which we don’t hear about.
    The women’s game despite having equal prize money, still doesn’t have the same profile as men’s tennis imo.

    Nicola

    8 Jul 13 at 10:04 am

  2. It doesn’t but these things go in phases. At the moment the women’s game is dominated by Serena whereas in the men’s we see four dominant players often producing thrillers. In the days of Evert and Navratilova they were the matches everyone wanted to see. Same when Borg and McEnroe were both on top. When we see two or three female players all bashing each others brains out with insane tennis then people will pay a lot more attention once more.

    It is like any sport – if you have one winner all the time then the casual fan will not watch anymore and the exposure will diminish. It will take more than one year of a Serena failure to change perceptions but the Williams’ sisters have been great – truly great – however the rest of the field needs to play catch up for the casual fa to really get sucked in.

    neilmonnery

    8 Jul 13 at 10:08 am

  3. Pretty sure when Federer was dominating and winning 3 of the 4 Slams in a year, people were complaining about the same winner but they still kept watching.
    You can’t say its just because there is one winner, when in the men’s game that has been proven false.

    Nicola

    8 Jul 13 at 10:13 am

  4. Pretty sure in the early days of Federer’s reign TV numbers were down. He had no rival. TV numbers have gone through the roof since Rafa turned up and gave Roger hell and now Novak and Andy have joined the party.

    TV numbers were up in women’s tennis when Graf and Seles were going at it most events.

    All sports need superstars – and in events where you match up directly against an opponent (unlike say Golf where Tiger Woods can carry an event in terms of TV numbers) but the women’s game has Serena and then… I’m sure someone will step up and if say Lisicki beats Serena again in New York and then again at Melbourne then suddenly you have the start of a legit rivalry.

    neilmonnery

    8 Jul 13 at 10:22 am

  5. Hear hear! Why can’t people just sit back and enjoy the first wimbledon win for Britain in a whole year!

    Hannah

    9 Jul 13 at 11:34 am

Leave a Reply