Blackadder wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Blackadder wrote:

Thommo wrote:

She hasn't but others have on her behalf.

Honestly, I think this is just people getting carried away after the Alizé Cornet incident, which clearly was a sexist double standard.

You can always rely on the Guardian to play the race card.

"Serena Williams’s treatment shows how hard it is to be a black woman at work"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/10/serena-williams-black-woman-work-tennis-discrimination

What's your point? That WIlliams has never faced racism or sexism in her career? That there is definitively no such bias in this case? That if it's in the Guardian it must be false?
Phrases like "play the race card" have worrying connotations.

My point is that the writer of that article makes a clear connection with the racism that black women encounter in the workplace (which I don’t doubt for a second) and the Serena Williams incident, in which there has been no evidence of racism from the umpire that I can see.

GrahamH wrote:

Blackadder wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Blackadder wrote:

You can always rely on the Guardian to play the race card.

"Serena Williams’s treatment shows how hard it is to be a black woman at work"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/10/serena-williams-black-woman-work-tennis-discrimination

What's your point? That WIlliams has never faced racism or sexism in her career? That there is definitively no such bias in this case? That if it's in the Guardian it must be false?
Phrases like "play the race card" have worrying connotations.

My point is that the writer of that article makes a clear connection with the racism that black women encounter in the workplace (which I don’t doubt for a second) and the Serena Williams incident, in which there has been no evidence of racism from the umpire that I can see.

How would you see it? There are two parts to it. Was she treated unfairly? If so what underlies the bias?
The first is easier to see than the second.

aban57 wrote:
Well all evidence show that the answer to you first question is NO. She wasn't treated unfairly. So there is no second question really.

GrahamH wrote:

aban57 wrote:
Well all evidence show that the answer to you first question is NO. She wasn't treated unfairly. So there is no second question really.

Except for all those that think it was unreasonable to penalise on-court coaching in the first place.

aban57 wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

aban57 wrote:
Well all evidence show that the answer to you first question is NO. She wasn't treated unfairly. So there is no second question really.

Except for all those that think it was unreasonable to penalise on-court coaching in the first place.

That is not the point. Whether it should be applied or not is irrelevant. It's currently applied, and for everyone. Hence the accusation of unfair treatment is bogus.

GrahamH wrote:

aban57 wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

aban57 wrote:
Well all evidence show that the answer to you first question is NO. She wasn't treated unfairly. So there is no second question really.

Except for all those that think it was unreasonable to penalise on-court coaching in the first place.

That is not the point. Whether it should be applied or not is irrelevant. It's currently applied, and for everyone. Hence the accusation of unfair treatment is bogus.

Except the evidence shows it is not applied in most cases.

aban57 wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Except the evidence shows it is not applied in most cases.

Most cases ? I don't believe that.

GrahamH wrote:

aban57 wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Except the evidence shows it is not applied in most cases.

Most cases ? I don't believe that.

I should say there is a lot of opinion that the coaching rule is a mess and not consistently applied.
Neither of us have any solid stats to go on.

Knight was also accused of racism last month for a cartoon which showed faceless black figures fighting in a Melbourne subway, a reference to a debate about African-Australian street gangs...................................................The saga traces back to January 2015, when a group calling itself the "Apex gang" - whose members, many of African origin, had been linked to carjackings, assaults and burglaries - drew police attention after a fight with another group.

In March 2016, police used pepper spray to dispel a large group of men and boys of African appearance who had gathered in the city's centre.

A year later, police made 53 arrests after a larger brawl.

Authorities moved to quell gang fears by declaring Apex was no longer an active group.

But then last month trouble flared again, with a fight in a McDonald's involving some 60 youths of African appearance, a street riot after the trashing of an Airbnb house, and the assault of a police officer by a gang of youths, again of African appearance, after he'd made a minor shoplifting arrest.

The incidents have dominated national news coverage, with another of Mr Turnbull's ministers, Greg Hunt, saying: "African gang crime in some areas in particular is out of control."

The prime minister, meanwhile, blamed Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews for "growing gang violence and lawlessness".

zulumoose wrote:How exactly is a cartoonist supposed to depict the situation?

EVERY main character in this sort of cartoon is an exaggerated caricature, that is the nature of them. Should the cartoonist feel they have to spare those of a certain race or gender from such depiction supposedly in the name of equality? Isn't that a hypocritical requirement?

How exactly would you draw a cartoon caricature of a black woman throwing a tantrum without being accused of racism and/or sexism? Avoiding the subject because of that is also racism/sexism.

zulumoose wrote:How exactly is a cartoonist supposed to depict the situation?

EVERY main character in this sort of cartoon is an exaggerated caricature, that is the nature of them. Should the cartoonist feel they have to spare those of a certain race or gender from such depiction supposedly in the name of equality? Isn't that a hypocritical requirement? How exactly would you draw a cartoon caricature of a black woman throwing a tantrum without being accused of racism and/or sexism?

Avoiding the subject because of that is also racism/sexism.

GrahamH wrote:

Blackadder wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Blackadder wrote:

You can always rely on the Guardian to play the race card.

"Serena Williams’s treatment shows how hard it is to be a black woman at work"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/10/serena-williams-black-woman-work-tennis-discrimination

What's your point? That WIlliams has never faced racism or sexism in her career? That there is definitively no such bias in this case? That if it's in the Guardian it must be false?
Phrases like "play the race card" have worrying connotations.

My point is that the writer of that article makes a clear connection with the racism that black women encounter in the workplace (which I don’t doubt for a second) and the Serena Williams incident, in which there has been no evidence of racism from the umpire that I can see.

How would you see it? There are two parts to it. Was she treated unfairly? If so what underlies the bias?
The first is easier to see than the second.

Keep It Real wrote:

zulumoose wrote:How exactly is a cartoonist supposed to depict the situation?

EVERY main character in this sort of cartoon is an exaggerated caricature, that is the nature of them. Should the cartoonist feel they have to spare those of a certain race or gender from such depiction supposedly in the name of equality? Isn't that a hypocritical requirement?

How exactly would you draw a cartoon caricature of a black woman throwing a tantrum without being accused of racism and/or sexism? Avoiding the subject because of that is also racism/sexism.

The "whitewashing" of Serena's opponent in that cartoon (blonde hair?) and Serena's over fat lips seems to me to point to an element of racism.

SafeAsMilk wrote:Ignoring the history of racism and sexism doesn't make one not sexist or racist. It makes one ignorant.

Teague wrote:So Ramos has been yelled at before and never once docked points for it when it's guys doing it.