Serving Sexism from the Baseline

Serena Williams’ second round game against Carina Witthoft two Wednesdays ago, was a summary dismissal of the German, in front of a packed and adulatory Arthur Ashe Stadium. On a sweltering New York night – the warmest since 1948 – I listened as Laine and Anya sitting next to me on the Loge level, fawned and clapped at every thunderous forehand and dominant serve. The young tennis players were awestruck by their role-model and another young woman in the seat below did nothing but instagram videos and pictures of Serena with inspiring captions. At one point I watched her struggle for about a minute in choosing between ‘Power Serves’ or ‘Awesome Aces’ as the caption for her for latest video. Soon after Serena’s game she left. As did Anya and Laine.

In fact, poor old Rafael Nadal – the men’s no.1 seed – finished his match to a half empty stadium with courtside seats being readily available for those who wanted to trek down from the nosebleeds. Serena’s match had about three rallies that lasted more than three or four shots. Rafa’s, against Vasek Pospisil, was far more competitive with the Spaniard ramping it up in the third set to get out of the heat. In terms of pure entertainment I’m glad I braved the heat with the help of several five-dollar bottles of water, and stayed to the end.

The empty seats confirmed that Serena Williams is a force of nature in more than just a sporting sense. She is a commercial attraction who is keeping the women’s game alive almost single-handedly. Wimbledon Champion Angelique Kerber went home in the Round of 32 and nobody batted an eyelid, nobody even missed her. An eyebrow is raised every time someone challenges Serena, but she is very much the custodian of the women’s game. A quick analysis of ticket sales will probably confirm this to the USTA and WTA too.

“You’ve a decent forehand” screams the blonde, blue-eyed, braces-wearing Laine, at her idol. And she does. Serena’s opponents will vouch for that. But the question arises whether we are able – as a people – to be able to applaud that right hand when it smashes a serve down the T, while maintain the equanimity to criticise the same hand when it brandishes a racquet at officials or points angry fingers? Are we capable of recognising that our heros are not all good or all bad, and it is that characteristic that makes them most like us.

Let’s be clear on one thing. Williams’ on court tirade and her cries of ‘sexism’ are two separate things and needed to be treated as such. One begets the other, but in terms of damage and ramifications to society at large, the second issue is far more grievous. This is not a debate about whether sexism exists in sport – it does. Has Serena been a victim of this and much more? Undeniably so. This is not a debate as to whether the coaching rule is unreasonable or not, that is for decision by the experts. It is a discussion about whether Serena shifted the goalposts while the ball was heading to the stands. It needs to be a discussion that doesn’t conflate simple issues into a quagmire of emotions. A discussion of when the ‘joker’ can and should be played.

Serena’s unrivalled celebrity, and status as the most dominant athlete in her sport in the world, has also set her up to be – whether she invited it we don’t know – a de facto spokesperson for causes. The media ask helpfully suggestive questions and Serena doesn’t shy away from an opinion. Being black, being a woman, and being so successful despite those two inescapable accidents of birth, has made Serena a role model for the feminist struggle. And rightly so. There are few women who have overcome economic hardship – she rose from the harshest California neighbourhoods – unbridled racism, being mercilessly taunted and ostracised for being poor and black in an affluent and white sport, and also overcome sexism in all its many forms vis-a-vis her appearance, her choice of attire and a myriad other perceived inadequacies that the patriarchy imposes.

You don’t overcome these kind of hardships and reach global superstardom without having the will to fight, a will often fuelled by an all-consuming anger at the world’s treatment of you. Again, rightly so, because if you’re black and/or a woman, the world can be a pretty shitty place. That Serena uses a lifetime of adversity to her advantage is undoubtedly what makes her the champion that she is. She did not have the luxury of failing at tennis like some, more privileged, players may have.

The question that arises then, is when does your personal adversity cross the line from motivating your behaviour productively, to becoming an excuse for destructive actions? This question was asked on Saturday night by Williams, with the same power that attaches to her ground strokes. And like her groundstrokes, it remains unanswered.

We all know what happened on Saturday. Serena was receiving coaching from her coach Patrick Mouratoglou, which is against the rules. That fact is not disputed and Mouratoglou admitted to coaching his player. This cannot be stressed enough. As passionate as Serena was in her denial, her coach’s admission is incriminating. Carlos Ramos was not – as many myopic supporters would have us believe – talking out of his backside. As Martina Navratilova points out it is irrelevant whether or not Serena saw him. The evidence circumstantially suggests she did because she mentioned a “thumbs up” in her explanation to the umpire, and the footage of Mouratoglou making his hand gestures could well be interpreted as a thumbs up.

Serena took great pains to explain herself on this violation, more pains than perhaps necessary, for a violation that had been issued 12 times before in the tournament to women alone. Despite umpire Ramos not suggesting, Serena herself used the word “cheat” to describe the incident. Given the widespread nature of the offence – there were 22 such violations at the US Open itself – people maybe forgiven for thinking ‘the lady does protest too much’. In fact, she brought up her daughter in the salvo indicating that she would not cheat because she’s a mother, as if motherhood serves as a deterrent to ‘cheating’, in the event sportsmanship fails. Either way, Serena unequivocally established her innocence to the rapt Stadium. “If he gives me a thumbs up he’s telling me to come on,” she said insisting that she and her coach don’t “have a code”. She also said she’d “rather lose, than cheat to win”. All very noble aspirations. She also told Ramos she “can understand why (he) thought it was coaching, but (she)’s telling him it wasn’t”. Another, tacit admission that there was a prima facie case against her. As great as Serena is though, I’m not sure that her ‘word’ – especially when it was contradicted later – is enough for the umpire to discount a signal from her box that clearly existed. In any event, it was a minor offence which should have abated with a warning, and it did. This was in game 2 of the second set on Osaka’s serve.

Upon losing the 5th game of the second set on her serve, Williams demolished her racquet. A not uncommon sight among frustrated players, especially when they go down a break. A common sight. But not an endearing one, regardless of gender. As Navratilova also says she has felt like breaking her racquet on countless occasions but did not. “There have been many times when I was playing that I wanted to break my racket into a thousand pieces. Then I thought about the kids watching. And I grudgingly held on to that racket,” said the most decorated Grand Slam champion ever. Williams soon seemed to have forgotten her daughter. The one because of whom she would “never cheat”. Ramos had no choice (it’s a strict liability offence) but to dock her a point for a second code violation which meant she started game 6, 0-15 down.

When Osaka held and broke again to go 4-3 up in the second set – 6 games after the initial warning – Williams continued her tirade “you will never, ever, ever be on another court of mine as long as I live” she said, echoing the threat that Rafael Nadal made to the same umpire at Roland Garros in 2017 on being docked a point. Even at that threat Ramos did not issue a verbal abuse warning. When he was called a ‘liar’ and a ‘thief’ though, he did. And a third violation is an automatic game penalty taking Osaka to 5-3 up. The game was up (pun intended) and Serena insisted on the referees being called out, not for the first time at Flushing Meadows for her. “Because I’m a woman are you going to take this away from me” she asked them. The simple answer would have to be “no,” that as a tennis professional there are pre-ordained penalties. They are the rules of the same tour which has made Williams richer than several black communities collectively. The tour is the hand that feeds her.

Why then, are her unsubstantiated allegations of victimhood, dangerous?

In the American celebrity culture, where Donald Trump gets voted for, and the Kardashians get watched on tv, it came as no surprise when Williams’ assertion that the “men get away with this all the time” was accepted without critique. It is a plea that she be allowed to get away with it too. Her explanation that she didn’t know the risks of calling him a ‘thief’ was that she felt justified in doing so because she thought he stole a point from her, when in actual fact, Ramos wasn’t the person gesturing to a 23 Grand Slam winner from the box, Ramos is not the one that deftly demolished her racquet, costing the ‘stolen’ point, and it also wasn’t Ramos that hit a brilliant passing shot to earn the second break of the set. However, to an adoring Stadium these fundamental details were irrelevant, their heroine was under fire by the establishment, and their own stories of having been there when Serena broke the record for Grand Slam singles titles, were being re-written by an upstart Japanese girl. It was clear from Serena’s insistence that Ramos “owed her an apology” and “(shouldn’t) talk to me unless you’re going to say you’re sorry” were clear indications that she felt wronged by her own behaviour. It also shut down any opportunity for the umpire to defuse the situation, as some suggest he should have. She further insisted that Ramos make an announcement to the crowd that explained that she wasn’t cheating. In effect, she was asking that the original warning be retroactively taken away, which Ramos couldn’t do even if he wanted to. Serena’s obsession with the word ‘cheat’ when she was the only one who used it, and her insistence on being ‘acquitted’ to the crowd, are worth noting.

It is unlikely that the Arthur Ashe stadium was educated enough on the rules for every patron to understand what was going on. It is also unlikely many commentators on social and mainstream media have acquainted themselves thoroughly with the sequence of events. However, the stadium made their feelings known with a chorus of boos, reducing champion Osaka – who had the temerity to conspire with Ramos to beat the American hero – to tears. Even after the match, she refused to shake hands with veteran umpire and her parting shot was that he “owes (her) an apology”.

To be fair to Williams, the stage was set for what would make her the most decorated singles champion in history, only for the red carpet to be dragged slowly but surely from under her by a determined, excellent Osaka. The pressure would have been great, given that Arthur Ashe was entirely hers except for Osaka’s box. That pressure of failure is not something many of us respond to well, and Williams had a bad day. She came as close to John McEnroe as any women’s player had done recently and those memories of him are not fond ones. Her claim that the men get away with it all the time is not true though. Neither is it valid. While the men do swear and carry on, they are also all given code violations. In fact the research shows they were penalised more often than the women in this year’s US Open. Given umpire Ramos’ high profile spats with the likes of Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, Nick Kyrgios and Rafael Nadal it also appears he is gender balanced in his officiousness. He made a verbal abuse call on Andy Murray when the Scot accused him of ‘stupid umpiring’, which is perhaps less grave than being called a ‘liar’ and ‘thief’. It is unlikely that Serena had all this information at her disposal when she played the sexism card on court. If she did have it, she would see that Ramos is a stickler, but not a sexist, as sexism demands men and women be treated differently for the same offence. Which is why she probably shouldn’t have played it.

On a dispassionate examination of her claim, it would appear that the men too have been given verbal abuse warnings with 2 issued in this US Open. With a total of 32 offences for men amounting to ‘audible obscenities’ and ‘unsportsmanlike conduct’, as opposed to 20 of the same violations against the women, the scales seem evenly balanced.

That sexism exists in the game though, is undeniable. Alize Cornet will point to a shirtless Djokovic recovering in his chair and shrug. Williams herself will raise her eyebrows about the French Open’s banning of her cat suit and I’ve always wondered what the reaction would be if a female player did the constant equivalent of what Nadal does in adjusting his underpants, both front and back. But in the face of these inequities the tennis world, and the activist world, were relatively silent, when they were staggeringly discriminatory practices.

That sexism exists though, does not give Williams an ‘out’ so to speak. It does not excuse her behaviour and she certainly should not be applauded for it, despite her best efforts at deflection. While many have pointed out, correctly, that she has risen through the ranks being a fighter and should not back down at any point, we must remember that the fighting spirit should not be allowed to extend into violence. Which is exactly what Williams resorted to when she whipped up the crowd with her allegations of sexism and also laughingly threatened not to play at the US Open again. Naturally, this would have sent the USTA accountants into a tailspin which may go some way in explaining their incongruous stance that Williams was right and while also deserving a USD 17,000/- fine. After issuing the find Adams who supported Williams in the aftermath is reported to apologised to Ramos privately in what can only be described as an act of contrition.

If Ramos being a man is enough to allege sexism, does Williams’ history of intimidation allow us to make the assumption that both the WTA and USTA have supported her less than enthusiastically? Current top players, have remained conspicuously silent. In a rare moment of unguarded frankness on the night, Katrina Adams – President of the USTA – went as far as to acknowledge that Osaka’s win “wasn’t the result we all wanted tonight” further demonstrating the sense of entitlement that Arthur Ashe Stadium felt towards the result. Osaka was starkly reminded she was just the understudy who had impudently wrested a starring role from the heroine. America was also reminded of how it reacts when it doesn’t get what it wants.

Boorishly…brattishly…Trumpishly.

A lot of the recent narrative has been with regard to Serena’s incredible comeback so soon after pregnancy to make two Grand Slam finals. She is a much talked about mother, and Olympia is oblivious how discussed she is in the media. Despite the accolades however, she is far from the first woman athlete to do so and certainly isn’t even the first tennis player. After giving birth in 2008 for the first time, Kim Clijsters won the US Open in 2009 and 2010 and the Australian open in 2011. There was relatively little recognition of her feat. Fellow American Lindsay Davenport did the same, while swimming’s Dara Torres and marathon runner Paula Radcliffe also won marathons and medals after giving birth. Serena’s return to competition after becoming a first time parent therefore, is not an unusual achievement. However, she is lauded so much that the first question at her post-match press conference was whether it was motherhood that prompted her to console a sobbing Osaka at the presentation ceremony. Sobs which she had played no small part in facilitating.

The reasons why the Williams’ reasoning – not her behaviour –  must be condemned are manifold and need to be examined.

In terms of on-court behaviour, Saturday night’s outburst was nothing new. Serena is a serial offender, even at this tournament. Her intimidation of the line judge in 2009 where she threatened to “poke the fucking ball, down your fucking throat”, when she called a foot fault, was a much uglier incident. The visibly terrified line judge complained to the chair umpire and Serena lost the match by forfeiting match point. It’s not exemplary behaviour, and neither was her outburst in 2011. Her justification did come in 2004 however, when she did behave relatively well in objectively terrible circumstances. She had awful line calls on crucial points against Capriati in an epic final and the entire watching world was sympathetic. However, in 2009 too, Serena said to the line judge in the presence of the referees “were you afraid because I said I was gonna hit you? I’m sorry but people have said way worse things,” indicating that she believes that obscenely threatening an official and brandishing a racquet at them needs to be judged on some sliding scale. It doesn’t. Traffic policemen don’t let you off for speeding because ‘everyone does it’ (and they do), or because ‘that guy was going so much faster’. Remember the last time you got out of  a speeding ticket with that argument? Exactly. The show court is the behavioural equivalent of a 20mph zone. If players would like that changed, Serena is well-placed to lead the charge.

John McEnroe didn’t ‘get away with it’ as some coverage would have us believe, and neither should Serena. While many are urging that Carlos Ramos be asked to wear the cloak of shame for all men before him, that have treated women badly (and there are billions of those over the course of human history, granted) in the analysis of his calls, the archive of Serena’s bad-tempered history is ignored. She even goes on to say she “doesn’t know why these things keep happening to her”. They won’t, if she stopped pointing fingers and belittling people. Really, they’ll stop. Feminism rightfully insists that bigger, stronger (people) should not exploit their physical threat and status.

That the media has a double standard in its reportage is a given. There’s no point even contesting that. Women are ‘hysterical’ and have ‘meltdowns’, while men are ‘passionate’ and ‘furious’. Editors and journalists need to be more sensitive to gendered language. No question about that. But the ignorant coverage of an incident, cannot absolve the incident itself. For instance it is possible to condemn this cartoon as distasteful and downright racist, while not excusing Serena’s behaviour on the night. It’s a substance and form argument and most modern societies do not possess the ability to distinguish between them.

That said, the condemnation is necessary purely because of Serena’s position as the undisputed queen of tennis. It is necessary because people like her – and similarly (but hopefully, very differently) Donald Trump – can call on a supporter base which feels that their icon ‘represents’ them. That they speak out for women and hard-working Americans, respectively. It is therefore their responsibility, given the privileged positions that their supporters thrust them into, whether it by by their votes, their purchasing of Nike goods, or tennis tickets, to be measured and respectful to the power they wield. The personality cults that society has become demand that those personalities act responsibly. And while Trump may have the constitutional checks and balances of democratic institutions, not all personalities are so well corralled. Serena has the ability to conjure up a storm at Arthur Ashe (and as social media suggests around the world), and her victimhood ruined the moment for another incredible woman. The irony of that is inescapable.

Further, it also sets the tone for any kind of legitimate disciplinary action against a woman to be labelled as ‘sexist’. This will be disastrous in any environment, most obviously a professional one. Being able to scream ‘sexism’ to the kind of raucous, tribal, support that Serena received sets a dangerous precedent, if those reacting don’t do so critically. And Saturday was evidence that those reacting rarely do. It leaves opportunity for ‘sexism’ and or another other ‘ism’ to muddy the waters of what may well be a clear violation of rules. It allows any person to weaponise their own particular ‘ism’ to absolve themselves of accountability. If an obviously under-performing minority worker was to be terminated and he screamed ‘racism’ it would entirely prevent a rational analysis of the situation. It is exactly what Mesut Ozil did when he quit the German national team subsequent to a disastrous World Cup campaign. Ozil posed with Turkish strongman leader Erdogan, and should have known better knowing that he is a national team player, and a representative of the German nation. He used the ‘immigrant’ argument while announcing his retirement although many in football thought he went before he was pushed given his lackadaisical performance in the German flop that was Russia 2018. It didn’t prevent him however, from using the current buzzwords despite being a long-standing member of the national team. Arsenal fans may also confirm his sub-par performances. This sort of behaviour then, makes accountability for performance an impossible governance criteria because emotive issues are woven into them. Emotion and rationality (regardless of gender) are often incompatible.

It is important to reiterate that this is not in any way an attempt to say that Williams has not faced sexism and racism, and that Ozil has not faced racism and discrimination. They are some excellent examples of people who have succeeded despite that. Many people don’t, and it is their lot that should interest us most. Ozil’s methods have not made the lot of immigrants in Germany any better. In fact, it may have made them be treated with renewed suspicion. An average working class woman cannot walk into her office, unleash at her boss or co-worker and claim ‘motherhood’ as a defence. That she is in an exalted position to be able to do that and still not risk her livelihood is the privilege that Williams ignores. And she should be reminded of that privilege, regardless of the fact that she had to work for it. Many other privileged people have also worked hard for theirs. The crime is not the privilege itself, but the abuse of it.

If Serena Williams had used her considerable clout when Alize Cornet was blatantly victimised by a sexist rule, that would have been fine. Loud cheering would have ensued. If she had made as big a fuss when her catsuit was banned that would have been a perfect response to undeniable sexism. But to accuse Ramos of sexism in this instance was not even a 50/50 call. The argument that men ‘get away with it’ with this umpire is again incorrect and a conflation of issues which have the nett result of valourising the villain.

If a working black woman – or for that matter a working white man – called his boss a ‘liar’ and a ‘thief’, it is unlikely that that job would last very long. Why then, does Serena get to make the argument that it wasn’t that bad? She tried to make out in her press conference, that other men have gotten away with having called him a ‘thief’, they haven’t. Djokovic accused him of ‘double standards’, and there was one in that game. Nadal threatened him with never umpiring one of his games after receiving a violation. Serena did both and also called him names. There’s a subtle, but fundamental distinction between exclaiming ‘that’s fucking bullshit’ to the world at large – like Nick Kyrgios (audible obscenity), to a pointed insult. All the men got code violations too. In fact, unarmed black men get shot in the street for a lot less disrespect towards law enforcement.

For a multi-million dollar star therefore, to claim victimhood is more than a little disingenuous. It has led to an enormous number of commentators, journalists and people on the street, validating her behaviour without for a moment checking whether her accusations hold water. The absent ‘fact check’, as it were. And that, is the danger. It is the same type of irresponsible utterances from Trump that result in minorities being targetted in America, and gun owners thinking they have impunity. While not comparing Serena to Trump for a moment, it is important to recognise how thoughtless supporter behaviour can be easily harnessed by equally thoughtless actions.

Impunity is a dangerous thing. And when little twelve year old Anya or Laine, who watched the Serena game with me, get reprimanded by their coach and they turn around and call him a sexist or racist (Anya is Indian American), will the full force of that impunity punch people in the face. A terrible childhood and 38 arrests before he was 13 years old didn’t excuse Mike Tyson from biting of his opponent’s ear, and certainly didn’t prevent him being prosecuted for rape. Nobody said “oh what a terrible journey he’s had”, in sympathy. And he was a man. The deliberate attempt of playing a ‘card’ just because it was available was apparent in the OJ Simpson murder trial. If the writers of American Crime Story are to be believed, highly-paid lawyer Johnnie Cochran’s defensive strategy to get his client off was to ‘make this trial about race’. It worked, as a cynical courtroom tactic. Regardless, OJ Simpson wasn’t remembered as a black athlete who faced enormous hurdles. He was convicted by the jury of society. Excusing celebrities of their transgressions will lead to an outbreak of excuse-making at lower level.

Carlos Ramos didn’t call out Serena because she was a woman. There is no evidence to suggest that. With her personal archive, and the siege mentality that she sometimes has, it’s easy to see why Serena would play the sexism card with her back to the wall. She doesn’t like losing. Many people react similarly. Nobody is judging her for it. People make mistakes. However, it does not mean that the mistake can and should be condoned and excused based on the identity of its maker.

The real tragedy of this situation is how Serena’s instinctive, defensive, but nevertheless inaccurate and cynical excuse has been lapped up by the media and both tennis and social commentators, both of whom have little insight into each others’ field of expertise.  Martina Navratilova, spoke of the restraint that she imposed on herself, despite being an Eastern European lesbian in the late 80’s, and at the receiving end of  all the bigotry surrounding those two things that existed at the time. That nobody has asked Chris Evert – the blonde, one time darling of the American game – to “check her privilege” while commenting on this issue is also telling. The George Dubya ‘you’re either with us or against us’ rhetoric only serves to polarise the world and obscure the actual problem, throwing reasoned rational thought into the waste bin. It results in paradoxes and ironies that this situation has dredged up.

It is ironic that the feminists are largely unsympathetic to the plight of an excellent Osaka, while stating that Serena was ‘robbed’. Surely, the triumph of an unheralded woman of colour is something to be celebrated. But as a man I recognise and acknowledge that what women should or shouldn’t celebrate is not my opinion to have. It is ironic that the feminists applaud the very same characteristics in women that they abhor in men. It is ironic also that the sanitization of sports has left it more acrimonious. It is ironic that the USTA both fines and endorses Serena. It is ironic that immigrant, gay, activist Martina Navratilova is largely ignored while the white, mainstream Billie Jean King and Chris Evert are quoted liberally, by those who are constantly angered by privilege. The kind of unwarranted allegations made by celebrities and leaders of communities is what leads to the impossible paradox of the unemployed, drug-dealing, wife raping Mexican who simultaneously takes all the American jobs. The logic is absent. And the facts are convenient.

This discussion needs to separate itself from the identities involved. This is not about Serena Williams or Carlos Ramos. It is about what they represent and what they are perceived to represent. It is about the dignity of office that comes from being in a privileged position. It is a conversation that needs to be had so that the two small girls cheering Serena on, are capable of discernment in their off-court interactions as well.

Serena Williams wasn’t beaten by the patriarchy on Saturday night. She was beaten by Naomi Osaka. My friends Anya and Laine need to be told that. However, in making it to Arthur Ashe Stadium as a 37 year-old, black mother, that grew up in Compton, she beat the patriarchy. Anya and Laine need to be told that too.