Andy Murray Fans Thread

[mrzz]

ke your position that any advocates for equal pay always lose the argument

There is an important distinction here: they don't always lose by definition, they have always lost all the ones I saw/read or participated in. It is a natural (and good) human trait to be able to make generalizations, but that does not mean I would become deaf to new and sound arguments.

But I am not holding my breath.

 

[Moxie]

There is an important distinction here: they don't always lose by definition, they have always lost all the ones I saw/read or participated in. It is a natural (and good) human trait to be able to make generalizations, but that does not mean I would become deaf to new and sound arguments.

But I am not holding my breath.

I don't agree that the side for equal pay (presuming you're talking only about tennis?) has lost even here. It's just the the side against is entrenched and refuses to here reasoned arguments, including the ones such as Murray made in his twitter war with Stakhovsky. (Which I had to look up, as I'd never heard of it.) Also, I disagree with your cynical contention that Murray's position on equality of women in tennis is a marketing decision.

 

[Jelenafan]

I don't agree that the side for equal pay (presuming you're talking only about tennis?) has lost even here. It's just the the side against is entrenched and refuses to here reasoned arguments, including the ones such as Murray made in his twitter war with Stakhovsky. (Which I had to look up, as I'd never heard of it.) Also, I disagree with your cynical contention that Murray's position on equality of women in tennis is a marketing decision.

Probably the thing a player values most (outside of his loved ones) is his tennis career. It’s his livelihood AND passion.

At the least Murray entrusted this most important aspect of his life to a retired woman athlete; I think that crosses a bit much more than to simply be a “marketing decision”.

 

[mrzz]

At the least Murray entrusted this most important aspect of his life to a retired woman athlete; I think that crosses a bit much more than to simply be a “marketing decision”.

And that could also be a marketing decision, or decided upon marketing reasons. Maybe it was just "I don't know who to hire, let's hire a woman". We cannot now for sure. Some assume it is for noble reasons, some assume it is exactly the opposite.

The vast majority of men world wide commonly hire female professionals (no joke here), pay for their professional opinions and even trust their lives to them (when your personal doctor is a woman). This happens everyday, all the time, for billions of people. But some like virtue signalling and say that they are champions of the cause because they do something that everyone does every day.

Not my kind of people.

 

[Moxie]

And that could also be a marketing decision, or decided upon marketing reasons. Maybe it was just "I don't know who to hire, let's hire a woman". We cannot now for sure. Some assume it is for noble reasons, some assume it is exactly the opposite.

The vast majority of men world wide commonly hire female professionals (no joke here), pay for their professional opinions and even trust their lives to them (when your personal doctor is a woman). This happens everyday, all the time, for billions of people. But some like virtue signalling and say that they are champions of the cause because they do something that everyone does every day.

Not my kind of people.

I find it astonishing that you can believe that a top 4 tennis player could make a decision so vital as a coach for a publicity stunt rather than how he'd perform on court. Also, the reply he gave to a reporter after he won his second gold medal, interrupting to correct the writer who said he was the first player to win 2 gold medals in singles. This kind of quick response is revealing as to how he really thinks, rather than being part of some calculation to come off as a good feminist, imo.

 

[mrzz]

I find it astonishing that you can believe that a top 4 tennis player could make a decision so vital as a coach for a publicity stunt rather than how he'd perform on cour

I already answered that. He could well have found himself out of options. On the other hand, if he actually believed that Mauresmo was a good coach, fine, he then should have hired her exactly as he did. There is nothing noble in hiring who you actually think is the best person to hire. The thing is that it seems that he, and most people that think this is a big deal, are assuming or and/or implying that the other players do not often hire women coaches because of their inner bigot/misogynist. How easily people make this assumption really baffles me. They are forgetting two small details from the real world:

1) There are far less female coaches, and far far less women coaches with experience coaching male players;
2) Men's tennis and women's tennis have differences. Players could well wonder if those differences could affect a coach/player relationship.

So, no, the fact that there are less female coaches on the men's tour does not mean that the tour has prejudice against women, and the fact that AM has a female coach does not mean he respects women any tinny bit more than any other player.

About the question from the reporter, yeah, I saw that by the way. That means he completely bought the narrative. Again, nobody can tell why. What I can tell is that his "correction" was completely useless as it was perfectly clear from context that the subject was male players.

 

[Moxie]

I already answered that. He could well have found himself out of options. On the other hand, if he actually believed that Mauresmo was a good coach, fine, he then should have hired her exactly as he did. There is nothing noble in hiring who you actually think is the best person to hire. The thing is that it seems that he, and most people that think this is a big deal, are assuming or and/or implying that the other players do not often hire women coaches because of their inner bigot/misogynist. How easily people make this assumption really baffles me. They are forgetting two small details from the real world:

1) There are far less female coaches, and far far less women coaches with experience coaching male players;
2) Men's tennis and women's tennis have differences. Players could well wonder if those differences could affect a coach/player relationship.

So, no, the fact that there are less female coaches on the men's tour does not mean that the tour has prejudice against women, and the fact that AM has a female coach does not mean he respects women any tinny bit more than any other player.

About the question from the reporter, yeah, I saw that by the way. That means he completely bought the narrative. Again, nobody can tell why. What I can tell is that his "correction" was completely useless as it was perfectly clear from context that the subject was male players.

You addressed the point, but you still say that you think it could be a part of the calculation, you suggest it could be "virtue signaling," and you say those types aren't your kind of people. You may think you're talking in general terms, here, but this is the Andy Murray thread, and we are talking about him. I would also say that he has never insisted he's a champion of the cause just because he hired Mauresmo. He has always just said that he hired her because he thought she'd make a good coach.

I don't know of anyone who has ever said that male tennis players don't hire female coaches out of sexism or misogyny (and they are two different things.) The sexism was really demonstrated on forums like this one by fans who slagged him and her. Which is why I would question your basic theory that he might have hired her (in part, at least,) as a calculated move to gain popularity. Men's tennis is consumed mainly by male fans, and I would say that men don't so much like women horning in on their sports. If it were about making himself more popular, I should think he'd have chosen a less controversial cause amongst male fans.

As to your points above:

1) Yes, we understand there are fewer female coaches out there, esp. with experience coaching (particularly) top men.
2) It doesn't seem to bother anyone that a lot of men coach women, so I'm not sure this works.

 

[Moxie]

You worded it carefully, but still the opposition between "sexist" and someone who has a welcoming spirit towards feminism is misleading. First, "feminism" as we debated a lot around here, can mean a lot of different things. I actually don't like the term "sexist", so let's trade it for misogynist (which is I guess what you meant). Does anyone who is not a feminist (whatever that means) is a misogynist?

I addressed this a bit above, but we can discuss terms. "Feminism" doesn't really mean "a lot of different things." Here's a good definition:

1. The advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes
2. The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
3. The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities
4. The doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

(Note that none of this implies "sameness," in terms of the sexes. A feminist can be a woman or a man.)

I would say that "feminism" is an active verb, so therefore, if a person doesn't necessarily consider themselves a "feminist," or advocate for "feminism" doesn't make them a "sexist." A "sexist" would be a person who actively doesn't believe that any of the above is true or necessary, who believes that women are actually inferior to men, and don't deserve the same rights, opportunities, or that they have a "place," which is not . Dictionary is more like: "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex."

"Misogyny," on the other hand, is a hatred of women. That is not the same as being a sexist, though there is usually overlap for the misogynist.

 

[Jelenafan]

What I was saying earlier about Frontier Tennis Forum Peace....

 

[Ricardo]

I addressed this a bit above, but we can discuss terms. "Feminism" doesn't really mean "a lot of different things." Here's a good definition:

1. The advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes
2. The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
3. The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities
4. The doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

(Note that none of this implies "sameness," in terms of the sexes. A feminist can be a woman or a man.)

I would say that "feminism" is an active verb, so therefore, if a person doesn't necessarily consider themselves a "feminist," or advocate for "feminism" doesn't make them a "sexist." A "sexist" would be a person who actively doesn't believe that any of the above is true or necessary, who believes that women are actually inferior to men, and don't deserve the same rights, opportunities, or that they have a "place," which is not . Dictionary is more like: "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex."

"Misogyny," on the other hand, is a hatred of women. That is not the same as being a sexist, though there is usually overlap for the misogynist.

you might as well go to communism, equality of many 'things' are earned not given or 'advocated'. should there be fewer female coaches for top male players or vice versa? females coaches can't do or achieve what the male coaches can, therefore the inbalance. Your theory has never been objective, and has always been about excusing why women aren't as successful in this sport, across many roles. For a start, if women can play at high level as the men, they'd definitely be on equal terms in every conceivable way.

Put it bluntly, because they are 'inferior' players, they don't deserve to have the same status...…...this applies to any group. If you have earned it, you would have it. Now don't hesitate to yell out your buzz word, it's a pre-requisite for you (and your fellow feminists) to orgasm

 

[Ricardo]

1) Yes, we understand there are fewer female coaches out there, esp. with experience coaching (particularly) top men.
2) It doesn't seem to bother anyone that a lot of men coach women, so I'm not sure this works.

1, if they can't do the job like the male coaches, of course they don't get hired.
2, wtf is this illogical feminist whinging? men coach WTA players with success, bothers you? hating men isn't the answer you should know better. Even feminist WTA players hire men as their hitting partners, sorry but it's about difference in ability. what else could it be? so why should it bother anyone?

 

[Ricardo]

1. The advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes
2. The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
3. The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities
4. The doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

cut the crap short, if you have lesser ability what makes you think you should be 'equal'? this definitely applies to tennis, as well as other sports.

 

[Moxie]

What I was saying earlier about Frontier Tennis Forum Peace....

I'm not fighting with Mrzz, I'm just discussing. He's good for defining terms. If I wanted a fight, I'd respond to Ricardo.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I already answered that. He could well have found himself out of options. On the other hand, if he actually believed that Mauresmo was a good coach, fine, he then should have hired her exactly as he did. There is nothing noble in hiring who you actually think is the best person to hire. The thing is that it seems that he, and most people that think this is a big deal, are assuming or and/or implying that the other players do not often hire women coaches because of their inner bigot/misogynist. How easily people make this assumption really baffles me. They are forgetting two small details from the real world:

1) There are far less female coaches, and far far less women coaches with experience coaching male players;
2) Men's tennis and women's tennis have differences. Players could well wonder if those differences could affect a coach/player relationship.

So, no, the fact that there are less female coaches on the men's tour does not mean that the tour has prejudice against women, and the fact that AM has a female coach does not mean he respects women any tinny bit more than any other player.

About the question from the reporter, yeah, I saw that by the way. That means he completely bought the narrative. Again, nobody can tell why. What I can tell is that his "correction" was completely useless as it was perfectly clear from context that the subject was male players.

Interesting take mrzz, of Murray's feminism. Obviously we cannot know for sure his motivation for being such. We can only speculate how probable his motivation is. I personally think that your theory of Murray's feminism being just his "marketing narrative" is quite unlikely to be objectively true. Or more precisely, it may play some but rather small part in Murray's motivation. He may be doing some marketing acts here, but there are many lines of evidence suggesting his ego is positively engaged in his behaviour. The chief evidence is that as a child/junior he has been coached by his mother, and he remains in good mentoring relationship with her. Such family relationship cannot be just acted and I am confident this model influences Murray's worldview about roles of women in tennis and in general. Also his twitter war with Sergei appears an emotional thing. Only people who are really engaged in a given subject are able to discuss it with such passion, actors stop when they realise they have nothing to gain from the discussion.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

The only reason Murray hired Mauresmo is that he liked her initials (AM) matched his

 

[mrzz]

If it were about making himself more popular, I should think he'd have chosen a less controversial cause amongst male fans.

Well, but maybe he thought otherwise. Anyway, a less controversial cause leaves him still as the clear #4 of the big four. This choice, for some, put him in the unique position of being the women's (and "progressive's") champion. That is an obvious choice for someone, for example, seeking attention, which is the impression he always gives me. Again, it all comes down as to how someone read his actions. You get a different impression from his actions, fine, but in no way that it is the only plausible interpretation of facts. But I care about this way less than the length of this discussion suggests.

2) It doesn't seem to bother anyone that a lot of men coach women, so I'm not sure this works.

The point was not "bothering", but if there is an objective, non misogynistic reason for a male player not to hire a female coach. It is, sorry to put it that bluntly, hypocritical, or at least extremely optimistic, to say that "I don't know of anyone who has ever said that male tennis players don't hire female coaches out of sexism or misogyny". Well, if people praise the players who do hire female coaches, identify them as "feminists" somehow, mention misogyny and sexism on the same articles, identify those players as good feminists, well, it is direct and straightforward that this implies that the rest are less "noble", and at least to some extent, part of the "problem".

By the way, nobody "bothers" that females have male coaches, but now that I think of it, I can bet that, on average, female players would be better off with female coaches.

 

[mrzz]

I addressed this a bit above, but we can discuss terms. "Feminism" doesn't really mean "a lot of different things." Here's a good definition:

1. The advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes
2. The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
3. The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities
4. The doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

(Note that none of this implies "sameness," in terms of the sexes. A feminist can be a woman or a man.)

I would say that "feminism" is an active verb, so therefore, if a person doesn't necessarily consider themselves a "feminist," or advocate for "feminism" doesn't make them a "sexist." A "sexist" would be a person who actively doesn't believe that any of the above is true or necessary, who believes that women are actually inferior to men, and don't deserve the same rights, opportunities, or that they have a "place," which is not . Dictionary is more like: "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex."

"Misogyny," on the other hand, is a hatred of women. That is not the same as being a sexist, though there is usually overlap for the misogynist.

Moxie, every world will have a dictionary entry. That in no way means that this word does not end up being used in a lot of different contexts and with a lot of different meanings -- that is, you can find other definitions out there, which probably you would think are not as good as this one, but that is the point. Actually, since you know exactly what you mean by feminism, and it is a subject you know in detail, it all seems obvious and simple and coherent to you. Other people, with different understandings of the subject, different approaches, etc and etc, won't have this clear picture in mind. And it is this collection of other people and other approaches that leads to the world having a lot of different "meanings".

Even your own given definition is not just one simple thing. It has four different items, most of them making reference to concepts which are not simple. What it means "equality", for example? It obviously cannot be read literally.

Also, those items are not that coherent with each other as well, because from "theory" to "belief" and to "doctrine", well, it is quite a big jump.

And, finally and most importantly, even if we would restrict ourselves to item 3) (by that item I am 100% feminist btw), then you have the question of "how do you enforce it", and for sure anyone's answer to it would shape her/his own understanding of the world.

Surely the world would be in a better place if anyone would agree on the meaning of this word. It would at the very least make the struggle against real misogyny much more effective. But it is obvious for me that someone who sees misogyny everywhere will have a very different understanding of what "feminism" practically means (which is basically my point).

 

[mrzz]

Interesting take mrzz, of Murray's feminism. Obviously we cannot know for sure his motivation for being such. We can only speculate how probable his motivation is. I personally think that your theory of Murray's feminism being just his "marketing narrative" is quite unlikely to be objectively true. Or more precisely, it may play some but rather small part in Murray's motivation. He may be doing some marketing acts here, but there are many lines of evidence suggesting his ego is positively engaged in his behaviour. The chief evidence is that as a child/junior he has been coached by his mother, and he remains in good mentoring relationship with her. Such family relationship cannot be just acted and I am confident this model influences Murray's worldview about roles of women in tennis and in general. Also his twitter war with Sergei appears an emotional thing. Only people who are really engaged in a given subject are able to discuss it with such passion, actors stop when they realise they have nothing to gain from the discussion.

Good points, but I really won't engage in a deep psycho-analysis of AM (which is the only way to go forward on this discussion). But please notice your own last sentence. It opens a door for someone never stopping, if they think that it is precisely playing the part that gives them gains (which could be of very different sorts, not only financial, but also psychological).

 

[brokenshoelace]

1) Murray may or may not believe what he preaches (I have no reason to believe he doesn't though) but he has a bit of a try-hard attitude in displaying it. Correcting the reporter in the above mentioned incident was such a case, as it was very clear what the context was and all Murray really did is come off like a douche (and I like Andy a lot to be clear).

2) Way too much emphasis is being placed on coaches, as always. Although in Lendl's case, he had clear and tangible effect on Murray's game and results.

3) I don't give a fuck if multi-millionaires are being paid equally or not. They're still getting paid way way way better than 99% of the world population. And before anyone starts the whole "most tennis players are not millionaires," try convincing yourself that Serena harps on the topic so much because she cares about the girls on the challenger tour...with a straight face.

 

[Ricardo]

3. The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities

only this is true as one who doesn't believe this is a sexist. But all the others? especially no4, wtf? nagging people into submission? get out here, given they have equal rights and opportunities we do not need someone using crap excuse for why certain gender achieves less, socially, politically or economically. You do realise there is difference in abilities? or you are going to advocate that there isn't? there are facts of life and nobody (with conscience) should advocate against it based on agenda.