Andy Murray having to remind sports journalists (again) that women exist

[SueMacartney]

https://mobile.twitter.com/jamiemacc_/status/885189154128224257

From his post-match interview after losing to Querrey today.

He's called out journalists before and no doubt will have to again. (Side note - does any other high profile male do this? In any field?) Relieved to hear it wasn't John Inverdale this time.

It's just struck me though, these journalists have sat and followed the women's matches because that's their job and they know who's won what, who's in which match, the stats etc and yet STILL they completely disregard them.

How can we increase the prominence of women's sport to the wider public if the journalists themselves, who are one of the links between the public and the sport, write female athletes off as irrevelant? Just reinforces the message that they're not important.

Well, if she is, I hope she shows him this thread and he comes on here to feel the luurve.

Yes SonicBoom I heard commentators ask that at the Olympics last year, they had questioned whether tennis would remain a priority now he had a family and were saying it appeared so (as he was in the Olympic final!). Not many men are asked that, I agree.

I think they did mention they were going to avoid having nannies where possible and do most of it themselves, so maybe it was a response to that I don't know.

Giddy. She's definitely a mumsnetter

Can we get Andy on to do a MN webchat, do you reckon?

Well if Kim is on here I'm sure she'd agree with me on other thing that bugs me about Wimbledon coverage. The slo mo replays of the crowd and supporters. The other day they played a slo mo of Kim who had obviously just blown out a sigh of relief and the replay made her lips flap like a fish for several seconds. Why do they do that? They make a brief roar of encouragement from Judy look like she's charging into battle when in reality it's a second's worth of punching the air celebrating a point won by your son/husband. BBC, sort this please, it's annoying and unflattering for anyone. As for Kim never smiling, I think she smiles a lot...she has EVERY reason to imo!

I know giddy, does anyone else remember the year the cameraman did a slow mo of a woman in the crowd jumping up and cheering? The woman in question had rather large norks, to use MN terminology, so it was essentially a slow mo of her tits bouncing. I think people (rightly) complained.

Also it's weird when they keep going back to the box and the commentators say who the people are. With the long term players, everybody bloody well knows who everyone is.

Yes I do, very sleazy!

Good on Murray. Just to offer a devil's advocate defence (not saying I believe this):

The reporter was talking to a male player after a match in the men's singles round, so maybe he thought it was apparent he was talking about male tennis players from that context? Would that reporter have said the same thing if he had been asking Konta?

Seemed pretty obvious to me that the context of the press conference/question was men's tennis, and so there was no need to specify "male" - which I'm sure is why the reporter chuckled to himself as it was frankly a piece of needless obtuse pedantry by Murray. IMO, there's nothing to be praised here on Murray's part, and deep down, I think most people know it.

Also, I'm pretty sure the American Bryan brothers won the men's doubles in 2010 or 2011, after the 2009 specified. Why wasn't the reporter corrected for not specifying "singles"?

From what I understand the reporter said 'person'

Even if he did mean male because he was talking to a male he should have been very clear and used the word 'male'

Person is supposed to include both men and women , Murray was quite right to clarify

The reporter said "first US player" to get into a major semi final since 2009. Which to me means player, male or female, as otherwise he should have said "male player". The default definition of a tennis player should not be male.

I don't buy the idea that the context makes it clear the reporter meant a male player.

I agree with the above comments. You can bet your life that if it had been, for example, Serena Williams, in a similar position, the journalist's comments would have been qualified with the word "female", whether a male player had also made the same achievement, or not. Male as default, indeed. Just like all the fuss over Roger Federer's 8th Wimbledon title, when, if I remember correctly, Martina Navratilova had nine under her belt.

AssassinatedBeauty - Clearly we disagree. Given the context - i.e. a press conference about a men's quarter final - there's no confusion in my mind that "first US player" meant male/man. Frankly, I think people are looking for something that wasn't there, and are being disingenuous.

FrauL - We have no idea what the reporter would or would not have said had he been speaking to Konta/Williams. I fail to see the merit in making judgements on the basis of things that didn't happen.

@bigolenerdy we can't possibly know. Except for decades of hearing, "the England team" and "England women's", The World Cup and the Women's World Cup etc. If he didn't qualify an accomplishment by Serena as 'women' he would be very rare.

But it's the classic argument. Look at this in complete isolation and it's not that bad. Shame for us we don't live in complete isolation.

What do you think Murray's motivation is, bigolenerdy, for responding how he did to the question?

I disagree that the word "player" needs no qualifier in this context. To me the description "player" means anyone who plays the sport in question, whether male or female. If you mean just male players then you should say so, whatever the context.

Disingenuous?

Alrighty

Apparently, Cambridge University Press did a study on sexism in sport reporting just before the Rio Olympics, referenced in this link -

inews.co.uk/essentials/sport/sexism-sport-olympics-reporting-men-women/

It concluded that...

"Overt gender marking is much more common for women’s participation in sport, both in terms of the sport itself, such as “ladies’ singles”, and the athletes participating, such as “woman golfer”.

Men’s sport is often considered the default – for example, we are more inclined to refer to women’s football, whereas men’s football is just called football, the researchers said."

So, yes, we don't know what exactly would have been said by the same reporter to Johanna or Venus, but we can indeed make an educated guess, if this was the situation one year ago...

AssassinatedBeauty - No idea what Murray's personal motivation was. We'd have to ask him. Perhaps he was peeved at having just relinquished his title with defeat to Sam Q whom he'd usually beat, and was now being goaded by a question about US players etc... who knows.

What I am personally comfortable with, given the context, is that this reporter was no more looking to erase the achievement of female US players than those who play "doubles" for the US (Re: the Bryan brothers above). He just wasn't talking about them.

FrauL - Sorry, but the study is not evidence of what THIS reporter would or would not have said to Konta/Williams. I don't see how your hypothetical scenario/educated guess adds anything. Are we supposed to condemn him because of what the study says?

"...So, yes, we don't know what exactly would have been said by the same reporter to Johanna or Venus..."

It's not that we don't know exactly - We don't know at all.

Not a fan of class analysis @bigolenerdy?

Isn't it weird though how many times Murray has done this, when reporters innocently ask him questions, definitely without erasing the achievement of women. Sometimes when he's won as well as when he's lost. Why on earth could he be mentioning it so much?

Indeed, we can't really enter into "subjunctive history" regarding the reporter and whether (or why) he was sexist or not. For what it's worth, I agree that doubles players also get somewhat overlooked, but that is not the point that Murray chose to make. Perhaps he also feels for doubles players such as his brother (and those playing in the wheelchair tournaments) not garnering enough attention, but feminism appears to be his cause, one that a huge number of women (and, gasp, men) can benefit from.

I applaud Andy for (repeatedly) emphasising that women's achievements, intentionally or not, often get airbrushed out or minimised. The fact that he has called others out on this in victory, and in passing, as well as in defeat suggests to me that this is something he truly believes in, not just a convenient curveball to detract from his loss at Wimbledon.

Thank goodness you're always here, on the feminism boards, to explain away casual sexism, institutional sexism, rape, and violence against women, big. Stops us getting all hysterical about things which definitely are not an issue in society, despite them happening all the time to women. But you're right, it's very important we don't look at the overall pattern.

it's very important we don't look at the overall pattern.

I love Andy.

No way would Andy trawl through the Feminism and Women's Rights Board on Mumsnet in order to berate women for the comment made by a man.

Not Andy.