Serena Williams

[Ghost of Harry Smith]

There’s a controversy roiling about an Australian newspaper cartoon, any thoughts? I’m curious as to how you guys in different countries respond to it. I think the cartoonist is an intelligent man and he and his editors knew full well that a contentious caricature would generate a few extra clicks/$$$.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/12/worl ... paper.html

[caramba]

There’s a controversy roiling about an Australian newspaper cartoon, any thoughts? I’m curious as to how you guys in different countries respond to it. I think the cartoonist is an intelligent man and he and his editors knew full well that a contentious caricature would generate a few extra clicks/$$$.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/12/worl ... paper.html

Has it acquired its own "gate" suffix ('cartoongate', 'serenagate',etc) yet?

[Samoan]

What rage costs a woman

https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/serena-w ... exism.html

Wow, what a story! Any thoughts?

Only a few thoughts: I'm not that invested as I don't really like how she comes across in interviews and I don't enjoy her style of play at all.
Her actions were her prerogative and they cost her money.
Serena's star is on the descent, she will never regain her polar position following her daughter's arrival (I understand it was a difficult delivery) and maternity leave but she has had a Phenomenal career and all good wishes to her and her family.

[Copehead]

There’s a controversy roiling about an Australian newspaper cartoon, any thoughts? I’m curious as to how you guys in different countries respond to it. I think the cartoonist is an intelligent man and he and his editors knew full well that a contentious caricature would generate a few extra clicks/$$$.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/12/worl ... paper.html

I understand the "it's only a cartoon" argument, but you have to be especially careful when dealing with people's who have been viciously denigrated through caricature like Black people and Jews, as the East London anti-capitalist mural showed.
This cartoonist seemed to be playing up to the tropes of racist cartoons rather than trying to steer away from them.
Clumsy or nasty? Seeing as it is in the Murdoch press then deliberately nasty is a strong option and full on racist a possibility.

[Ghost of Harry Smith]

There’s a controversy roiling about an Australian newspaper cartoon, any thoughts? I’m curious as to how you guys in different countries respond to it. I think the cartoonist is an intelligent man and he and his editors knew full well that a contentious caricature would generate a few extra clicks/$$$.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/12/worl ... paper.html

I understand the "it's only a cartoon" argument, but you have to be especially careful when dealing with people's who have been viciously denigrated through caricature like Black people and Jews, as the East London anti-capitalist mural showed.
This cartoonist seemed to be playing up to the tropes of racist cartoons rather than trying to steer away from them.
Clumsy or nasty? Seeing as it is in the Murdoch press then deliberately nasty is a strong option and full on racist a possibility.

Completely agree. I think it’s disingenuous of the artist to suggest that he’s oblivious to the history of racist stereotyping in cartoons.

[sloopjohnc]

There’s a controversy roiling about an Australian newspaper cartoon, any thoughts? I’m curious as to how you guys in different countries respond to it. I think the cartoonist is an intelligent man and he and his editors knew full well that a contentious caricature would generate a few extra clicks/$$$.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/12/worl ... paper.html

I understand the "it's only a cartoon" argument, but you have to be especially careful when dealing with people's who have been viciously denigrated through caricature like Black people and Jews, as the East London anti-capitalist mural showed.
This cartoonist seemed to be playing up to the tropes of racist cartoons rather than trying to steer away from them.
Clumsy or nasty? Seeing as it is in the Murdoch press then deliberately nasty is a strong option and full on racist a possibility.

This.

[never/ever]

The tone of the argument in Australia is quite different : the cartoonist is well-known for his over the top-caricaturisation of celebrities.

Serena's physique in the cartoon is dominant but that is because she is a dominating, very powerful black woman. I understand it when some people are offended by it but I do also understand that, as a cartoon, it is not to depict the physical characteristics of an angry woman but overplaying and making fun of the situation. I really like the punchline.

The question of stereotyping and political correctness has always been blurred in the world of cartoonism and especially here in Australia there have been instances of cartoons shocking the world because of their frank and no-holds-barred nature. That in some cases people hold the idea that it means the cartoonist is racist is just the way people jump to conclusions and social media is not arbitrary but judge and jury at the same time. I'm with the paper in that sense that people are willingly missing the point and that, given the propensity of the cartoonist to over-charachterise his subjects and the topic content, it was never about depicting Serena as some sort of brute but as an overly aggressive and petulant loser.

[Ghost of Harry Smith]

I can’t agree never/ever, by no means am I an expert on the history of racist portrayals in cartoons but people who are have been able to explain why the illustration’s thick lips etc. are tropes of a bygone era of racist sambo/tar baby representations in cartoons.
Intent is not required for something to be racist. If Knight genuinely didn’t know about this historically racist aspect of his own industry, then why didn’t he and the paper just acknowledge that they’d published something inappropriate? No instead they doubled down in opposition to the facts because they know there’s an audience for this stuff.

[never/ever]

I know I can never make an utter convincing argument to counter what you say. To give a Murdoch-owned paper a pass on these matters, given their history of news reporting and surely they will revel in the furore of this too is especially a weak premise.
Historically, we are on a rather large precipice, where we are still dealing with righting the wrongs of large parts of the population. It is understandable that lots of times issues like racism will pop up wearing different guises and it comes down to everyone's personal definition of what that constitutes.

I get how the depiction of Serena can upset. I've seen different cartoons of her that haven't caused any uproar like this. I will defend the right of cartoonists to lampoon her however as I think topically the cartoon was right in showing her at her absolute worst, the way she carried on at that US Open-final. If the imagery of that needs to be adjusted, then alright, but don't let her off the hook for what she has done.

[Dennis Testicle]

I can’t agree never/ever, by no means am I an expert on the history of racist portrayals in cartoons but people who are have been able to explain why the illustration’s thick lips etc. are tropes of a bygone era of racist sambo/tar baby representations in cartoons.
Intent is not required for something to be racist. If Knight genuinely didn’t know about this historically racist aspect of his own industry, then why didn’t he and the paper just acknowledge that they’d published something inappropriate? No instead they doubled down in opposition to the facts because they know there’s an audience for this stuff.

Exactly, plenty of chances to go "oops, sorry" but instead they railed against PC culture, as if racism is the domain of the mythical leftie snowflake. There's a reason why the vast vast majority of people who don't see racism in it are white conservatives (or in the case of Jacinta Price and Warren Mundine, conservative Indigenous, which is why they're the only two that those racist dickheads at NewsCorp will listen to on Indigenous matters).

Edit: I also think she should be able to be lampooned and criticised for her carry on, because it was something people are allowed to be critical at, but it's not like Mark Knight didn't see the hullabaloo when Bill Leak did THIS EXACT THING. Rein in the caricatures when appropriate.

[Ghost of Harry Smith]

Yeah totally fair call that she remains “lampoonable”, just make a bit of effort not to slip into modes of representation that are historically suspect.
And if this means a white male cartoonist is pushed out of his comfort zone a bit and has to work harder to find modes of representation that are both funny and informed, then so be it.

[andymacandy]

I feel sorry for Osaka in all of this. Whatever the rights and wrongs, Serena was being well beaten, and she deservedly won her first Grand Slam which has been completely overshadowed by subsequent events. She even felt she was being booed at the end.
Neither Williams or Ramos covered themselves with glory, but Osaka deserved better.

[algroth]

What rage costs a woman

https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/serena-w ... exism.html

Wow, what a story! Any thoughts?

Seems a bit odd seeing as her opponent was female and not white too. Perhaps Ramos has very specific issues.
Or perhaps he is just a stickler for the rules.
As a rugby player I was taught the ref is always right even when he is a blind fuckwit and there is nothing you can do about that.

But on an institutional level, it seems the likes of McEnroe can all but take a dump on the court, while a modest infraction costs a female person of color a formal rebuke. The fact that the outcome of the match seems to not have really even been in contention adds an additional interesting dimension to the story.

Thing is, McEnroe *did* get sanctioned repeatedly in his career. I've seen a lot of arguments bringing McEnroe up but his case in particular is one that did see several sanctions. Maybe not consistently though, and therein might lie the issue (would a more rigorous application of the rules exist in women's tennis? That'd be interesting to explore). Regardless the issue also falls down to the particular umpire and their judgement call given the context and so on - question is how *they* would have acted about the same infraction in a different match, between white male tennis players for example.

Regardless, whilst I don't deny that there's likely a lot of sexism in the sphere of professional tennis and sports in general, this particular case to my eyes just isn't it. I actually think it rather shameful and deliberately harmful to pull out the discrimination card, as it only further muddies the debate that is ongoing at large in the present time, and most certainly *does* reek of the kind of self-beneficial victimization the 'sceptics' in the matter often read into these issues.

[sloopjohnc]

I feel sorry for Osaka in all of this. Whatever the rights and wrongs, Serena was being well beaten, and she deservedly won her first Grand Slam which has been completely overshadowed by subsequent events. She even felt she was being booed at the end.
Neither Williams or Ramos covered themselves with glory, but Osaka deserved better.

Osaka was on the Ellen DeGgeneres show and was asked was Serena said to her. Serena was classy as usual. I love Osaka - she's a world-class athlete who won a grand slam tournament and you'd think she was on talk shows because she got an A on her vocabulary test.

Serena's comments to Osaka are at about 2:20 in.

[Jimbo]

I feel sorry for Osaka in all of this.

No need. Osaka is now the darling of Japan enriched with endorsement deals from Nissan, Citizen watches and Yonex rackets.

[never/ever]

I feel sorry for Osaka in all of this.

No need. Osaka is now the darling of Japan enriched with endorsement deals from Nissan, Citizen watches and Yonex rackets.

Heard Adidas is giving her the biggest endorsement deal ever too.

[Jimbo]

No wonder the Japanese like her. Aside from her "halfness." her modesty, quiet voice and self-deprication are characteristics Japanese appreciate.

[sloopjohnc]

I feel sorry for Osaka in all of this.

No need. Osaka is now the darling of Japan enriched with endorsement deals from Nissan, Citizen watches and Yonex rackets.

Heard Adidas is giving her the biggest endorsement deal ever too.

That's a smart investment. Although she's only 20 and who knows where her career goes, she checks off lots of boxes. And her game is electric.

[Jimbo]

[sloopjohnc]

Interesting, thanks.