Why doesn’t HE just get in there then?
January 28, 2013
Tonight I read the following article by Richard Hinds in the SMH, about women’s tennis:
Putting aside that it drips in contempt – about pretty much every aspect of women’s tennis – I find myself thinking rather peevedly…(yes, I’ve decided that it’s an adverb):
“Why don’t you get down to a court and play against Victoria Azarenka?
I bet you she would play rings around you”.
I know it also talks about cost and emotion etc. etc. but all of that diminishes these athletes’ worth.
Since when does women’s tennis have to be like men’s tennis to be valued?
It’s still two people of equal stature, battling it out.
It seems like Australians are becoming a bunch of judgemental whingers.
Sitting from lofty towers of perfection, looking down their noses at every crevice and every action of what and who surrounds them.
The above was written last night before I fell asleep with the laptop on my lap.
I’m back now because a few things have popped up today, that have confirmed the feelings I had last night.
1. Due to Azarenka taking a 10 minute medical break in the semi of the Australian Open, the media (and in turn a good proportion of the general public) decided that that, was WRONG.
She was struggling before those 10 minutes, but then came back out and won.
Was it in the spirit of how that time should be utilised? Maybe not.
Can we say for sure that she was doomed to lose, had she not done it? Who knows.
Maybe she would have won anyway.
Well, today she won the Australian Open – in spite of mistakes being cheered and winning points being booed, throughout the entire final.
Who do those audience members think they are?
I wonder if they would have done the same to Federer? Or Djokovic? Booed them.
Food for thought…
2. My friend Kim (@ allconsuming.com.au) said she watched the Brene Brown TedX presentations on vulnerability and shame and that Brene mentions Roosevelt’s speech about the man in the arena.
This quote is magnificent:
“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”
“Citizenship in a Republic,”
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
Man AND woman – in the arena.
Question #141: Can women finally be counted as also being in the arena?
But as women, with our own unique strengths, not pretend-men.
Such high horses.
Please. Give us all a break.