11/23/24
September 14, 2009
Kim Clijsters Wins US Open: For the past two years, Kim Clijsters thought it was more important to get married and have a baby than to play tennis. Now that she's won the U.S. Open as an unseeded player, defeating Caroline Wozniacki 7-5, 6-3, perhaps Clijsters has her priorities back in the right place.
I didn't know this, but Clijsters became the first mom to win a Grand Slam tennis tournament since Evonne Goolagong Cawley at Wimbledon in 1980. Very cool.
posted by rcade at 10:51 AM on September 14, 2009
perhaps Clijsters has her priorities back in the right place.
rcade, by this do you mean to suggest that marriage and child-rearing are somehow less important than playing tennis?
posted by Spitztengle at 11:58 AM on September 14, 2009
perhaps Clijsters has her priorities back in the right place.
I thought that we weren't supposed to add our own text when posting? To suggest that tennis is more important than starting a family is way off base. Congrats to Clijsters for her win.
posted by BornIcon at 12:24 PM on September 14, 2009
What kinda bullshit is that? "has her priorities back in the right place."
Wow... Just... Wow. Way to belittle mothers.
Yes, because hitting a stupid ball over a stupid net is MUCH more noble than raising the future generation.
Fuck me that's one of the most misogynistic things I've ever read I think.
posted by Drood at 12:40 PM on September 14, 2009
See what happens when Americans try a little gentle sarcasm?
I enjoyed it, rcade, even if it missed the target elsewhere.
posted by JJ at 12:52 PM on September 14, 2009
I second JJ's sentiments.
posted by inigo2 at 01:44 PM on September 14, 2009
See what happens when Americans try a little gentle sarcasm? Is it because we're the only ones dumb enough to think sarcasm works when written in plain text?
posted by joaquim at 02:20 PM on September 14, 2009
Is it because we're the only ones dumb enough to think sarcasm works when written in plain text?
Was that sarcasm? I'm not quite sure if it is or not but I'm gonna take a wild guess on that one.
posted by BornIcon at 02:27 PM on September 14, 2009
You need an emoticon or six, joaquim.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:36 PM on September 14, 2009
I caught the sarcasm, but I do want to echo BI's first comment about editorializing in the FPP.
posted by opel70 at 03:01 PM on September 14, 2009
Let's try to allow some humor in the FPPs. Humor and editorializing are not the same thing.
posted by bperk at 03:37 PM on September 14, 2009
I wasn't trying to editorialize, just having fun with Clijster's unusual accomplishment.
posted by rcade at 03:55 PM on September 14, 2009
I wasn't trying to editorialize, just having fun with Clijster's unusual accomplishment.
Of course you were rcade but the problem is, there's been others that wanted to have fun with the FPP and were chastised because of it.
Humor and editorializing are not the same thing.
It is when you editorialize the FPP with humor that was not originally there.
I'm all about having fun...I'm just saying.
posted by BornIcon at 03:59 PM on September 14, 2009
I don't remember anyone getting chastised for humor. When did this happen?
posted by bperk at 04:08 PM on September 14, 2009
Perhaps we'll start celebrating NBAers who choose life on the hardwood instead of the cotton fields too then, yeah? All in good fun, of course.
I'll admit that I missed the sarcasm, but with recent episodes of sportswriters making fun of things that shouldn't be made fun of, "perhaps" there are some things, even with tongue-in-cheek, that might be out of line.
Clijsters' win alone is worthy of an FPP. The rarity of bein' a mom who did it is worthy of celebration without any "spin" for the sake of a headline grab--in my opinion anyway.
posted by Spitztengle at 04:17 PM on September 14, 2009
I don't remember anyone getting chastised for humor. When did this happen?
I can't recall an example either.
posted by rcade at 04:26 PM on September 14, 2009
If Sportsfilter becomes the kind of site where only literal FPPs are permitted, then it's going to lose readership real fast. Well, mayb not, but it's going to lose me. I've got the mainstream sports media to give me banal facts flaccidly reported. I come here for a different take. Granted, perhaps the fact that I spotted rcade's humour required some foreknowledge of who he is and what he has posted in the past, but even so, do we all need our arses wiped so much?
As for the racism strawman, thanks for that, but put it away and come up with something better as an argument for all things literal.
posted by JJ at 04:34 PM on September 14, 2009
Spitz: It's only being retroactively called sarcasm, which I don't believe. And if it's an attempt at genuine sarcasm, he should never ever do it again, because he sucks very badly at it and clearly doesn't understand the concept.
posted by Drood at 04:35 PM on September 14, 2009
I don't remember anyone getting chastised for humor. When did this happen?
It's hard to explain a bad sense of humour to someone who has one.
posted by JJ at 04:38 PM on September 14, 2009
Spitz: It's only being retroactively called sarcasm, which I don't believe. And if it's an attempt at genuine sarcasm, he should never ever do it again, because he sucks very badly at it and clearly doesn't understand the concept.
I saw it as sarcasm. Maybe you suck as seeing it and don't understand the concept.
And JJ ... you said flaccid. Uh huh huh.
posted by wfrazerjr at 04:46 PM on September 14, 2009
You have to be both humorless and illiterate to misunderstand rcade in this thread. He posted the second comment and linked to the article about Clijsters being the first mom to win for a long time and said "very cool." But, the complaints have been a very effective derail, so that no one is talking about Clijsters. Thanks for nothing.
posted by bperk at 04:49 PM on September 14, 2009
That's idiotic, Drood. It was not a mystery on par with cracking the DaVinci Code to figure out that I was being facetious.
Bperk cracked the code when he discovered that I posted the second comment in this discussion, in which I described Clijster's accomplishment as "very cool."
But even if that's too subtle, we've both been members here seven years. I would have thought that over that span, I had conveyed that I'm not a knuckle-dragging asshole who believes a woman's place is on the tennis court, not in the home.
For the record, my priorities in life -- in order of importance -- are family, baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet.
posted by rcade at 04:53 PM on September 14, 2009
Blueberryist.
posted by JJ at 04:58 PM on September 14, 2009
I think Drood was referring to the Mark Whicker column. But I support him if he's saying you suck. Just because I like to watch drama.
/pronoun police
posted by yerfatma at 05:04 PM on September 14, 2009
How about that Kim Clijsters?
posted by rcade at 05:25 PM on September 14, 2009
baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet.
That nicely sums up all 5662 hours of Fox's post-season broadcasts. If you'd added "celebrities", I wouldn't even have to watch the games.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 05:32 PM on September 14, 2009
Fuck me that's one of the most misogynistic things I've ever read I think.
By that you clearly mean you're pretty sheltered. Get out more.
Congratulations to Kim Clijsters, she did a great job, mom or not, unseeded or not, semifinal line judge controversy or not. I bet she would have found rcade's joke funny, too. After all, she's Belgian.
posted by Hugh Janus at 06:23 PM on September 14, 2009
Go look at rcade's extensive posting history. I'm guessing about 75% have some sort of sarcastic humor near the end... let's lighten up a little, folks.
posted by dusted at 06:27 PM on September 14, 2009
You shit disturber. Look at all that you have wrought. Recklessly stirring it up for no reason other than your own sheer amusment. You're a sociopath. Plain evil.
Just like the Jews.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:02 PM on September 14, 2009
Spitz: It's only being retroactively called sarcasm, which I don't believe. And if it's an attempt at genuine sarcasm, he should never ever do it again, because he sucks very badly at it and clearly doesn't understand the concept.
Well...you're wrong.
I don't see how anyone who's read rcade's posts for more than a couple of weeks wouldn't get it, to be honest.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:37 PM on September 14, 2009
I don't remember anyone getting chastised for humor. When did this happen?
Chastised may be a bit of an exaggeration, but I do recall others being warned about editorializing in FPPs. Or rcade just changes it. What are you rcade, some kind of dictator?
Kim who?
posted by BoKnows at 11:28 PM on September 14, 2009
Chastised may be a bit of an exaggeration, but I do recall others being warned about editorializing in FPPs.
I see a distinction between sarcasm and editorializing, but let's follow the "editorializing" trail and see where it leads. "Editorializing in a FPP" means promoting a personal opinion -- one's own opinion -- that is not expressed by the FPP link. I don't see what rcade did as promoting any opinion -- I can't see from the FPP what that opinion would be -- so I don't think the accusation of editorializing in the FPP fits here.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:18 AM on September 15, 2009
LBB, I agree completely. Just pointing out the exaggeration of the offense.
posted by BoKnows at 10:49 AM on September 15, 2009
What are you rcade, some kind of dictator?
You calling him the post nazi?
Nein! Niemand ist dass gro von einem diktator.
posted by BornIcon at 11:23 AM on September 15, 2009
Plain evil. Just like the Jews.
How dare you, Weedy! Calling them plain when clearly they are extraordinary. Just like the Catholics. And the Yankees. And Beelzichic.
It is the Mormons and the French who are plain. And Elway. And the Cardinals. From Arizona.
Who's Kim Clijsters?
posted by THX-1138 at 01:52 PM on September 15, 2009
Who's Kim Clijsters?
Some tennis player who also apparently has a working uterus.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 07:51 PM on September 17, 2009
Yeah for Mommies! Women can be both professional athletes and mothers after all.