04/20/24
June 09, 2016
Chris Christie: Hot Female Tennis Players Are Hot: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie commented on the attractiveness of women tennis players during a four-hour-long appearance on sports talk radio on Thursday. "We need [Maria] Sharapova. ... You need [Caroline] Wozniacki. ... I liked Martina."
For chrissakes, can't even this tiny little site off the beaten path be free from this childish culture of virtue signaling and moral purity posturing that's taken over everywhere else on the web?
That's the spirit!
The answer is no, there's no reason to make even more room online for the boorish, troglodytic, and sadly average attitudes of yesterday's man and his little brothers who wail and pout when the grown-ups tell them it's rude to measure a sportswoman's achievement by the angle of their erections.
posted by Hugh Janus at 07:34 PM on June 09, 2016
I took out the part of the quote that wasn't by Christie. I wouldn't have posted it without that part, frankly, but I'll keep it online now rather than kill the whole thing.
I posted it because I'm a women's tennis fan and it was a nice example of the bro level of engagement in the sport coming from an unusual source.
Are women's tennis players good looking? Often. Should a discussion of any women's sport by men be entirely about good looks? Not if they are genuine fans.
Where was the host going with this comment? "You need attractive European tennis players so that you have something to do other than watch the Listen, I love the Williams sisters; they're American and they win all the time. But for the sport, you need some of --"
Why do we need Europeans? What's he suggesting is deficient in the Williams's?
Calling something "virtue signaling" or "moral purity posturing" suggests I'm fishing for outrage in calling attention to this. Consider the possibility that I'm interested in the topic of how we talk about a women's sport -- and I have some faith in this site to be elevated over the average flamewar.
posted by rcade at 07:54 PM on June 09, 2016
rcade: Are women's tennis players good looking? Often. Should a discussion of any women's sport by men be entirely about good looks? Not if they are genuine fans.For the first bolded part, this is what irked me. It is deeply, profoundly disturbing to me in general how the web has become Orwell's nightmare: people policing each other, constantly, pouncing on every little statement or misstep. God help you if you ever, in your life, utter the wrong thing, or get the bitter social gestapo on your ass determined to ruin your life and throw you in the Internet Stockades. If all coverage, news, and discussion about women's tennis was just lads talking about chicks, then sure that's a discussion worth having. But that it happened in this one case? That seems like a complete non-issue, as both men and women will on occasion turn their thoughts and conversations to issues of sex, sexuality, and attractiveness- especially whenever discussing famous and fit people.Where was the host going with this comment? "You need attractive European tennis players so that you have something to do other than watch the Listen, I love the Williams sisters; they're American and they win all the time. But for the sport, you need some of --"
Why do we need Europeans? What's he suggesting is deficient in the Williams's?
Calling something "virtue signaling" or "moral purity posturing" suggests I'm fishing for outrage in calling attention to this. Consider the possibility that I'm interested in the topic of how we talk about a women's sport -- and I have some faith in this site to be elevated over the average flamewar.
As for the second bolded part, yeah when I was reading the article/listened to the soundcloud clips, I was more struck by that phrasing than anything Christie said, and thinking "Uh...?". But I still don't care. It's a radio guy I've never listened to before and won't listen to again, so if his genital-driven sports fandom is a tad racist that's too bad... but also isn't a big deal unless he's actively out campaigning for a return of Jim Crow laws. I once knew a guy I worked with at Microsoft who happened to genuinely, sincerely believe in that David Icke world-leaders-as-lizard-shapeshifters stuff; still, he hardly ever mentioned it except the couple of times it came up in cafeteria conversation, and otherwise he was a nice guy. Life's too short to worry if someone has a bad opinion I don't agree with, unless they're forcing their standards on me or other people.
Which leaves me still not sure what there is to discuss about it, as one guy on the radio does not equal "how we talk about a women's sport". People say things, and talk about different things, that's one of the great things about a free country. But if I look at Hugh Janus' comments, I see a lot of name-calling, a lot of cheap implications about genitals and erections, and some sort of dismissive manbaby concept; all because someone dared only to suggest this was a non-issue.
Given how quick and angry his own reaction, am I really off-base then, in talking about struggle sessions and moral purity? And what was that you were saying about flamewars?
posted by hincandenza at 08:21 PM on June 09, 2016
Like I said, that's the spirit!
When you preemptively dismiss any disagreement as childish and frame it as PC Kulturkampf, pretending you're taking the high road frankly stinks. It's a reactionary tactic that snuffs any chance for a reasonable exchange of ideas.
But that's not what you're after.
posted by Hugh Janus at 08:44 PM on June 09, 2016
Which leaves me still not sure what there is to discuss about it, as one guy on the radio does not equal "how we talk about a women's sport".
How a famous governor and sports radio host discuss something can obviously lead to more general debate of how "we" talk about it. That's how discussions about a sport's perception in culture are waged. People bring up examples.
I don't know why you'd be irked by the question, "Should a discussion of any women's sport by men be entirely about good looks?" That's what they were doing.
Is it the end of the world that Christie and this host are uninformed bros on the subject of women's tennis? Of course not. But it's like when soccer-hating sports radio gabbers bring the sport up only to ridicule 0-0 draws and deride the players as a bunch of soft wimps. I had to endure that on Jacksonville radio for years. There's finally some people who can discuss the sport like they actually care about it.
Rejecting the bros has value. Men who want to talk women's tennis should have some intelligent takes that have nothing to do with any player's good looks. It's the most popular women's sport. If somebody can't talk about it beyond "they shore purty," that's embarrassing.
... all because someone dared only to suggest this was a non-issue.
You did more than that. You accused me of being part of the "childish culture of virtue signaling and moral purity posturing." I'm not offended -- I'd rather discuss the link -- but if you're going to throw elbows you might catch one back.
posted by rcade at 08:45 PM on June 09, 2016
"how we talk about a women's sport".
And therein lies the rub (so to speak). The national sports media doesn't talk about women's sport at all until something like Maria Sharapova getting banned for two years happens and then they get all reactionary and chuckle-fucky about "well there goes my reason to watch women's tennis" even though they never actually did in the first place. It's an opportunistic laugh to actively push down a sport they passively ignore by not covering it in the first place. Not to mention horribly misogynist and defeating for many would-be female athletes in the country.
I think that's a perfectly valid thing to call out.
posted by Ufez Jones at 09:29 PM on June 09, 2016
For chrissakes, can't even this tiny little site off the beaten path be free from this childish culture of virtue signaling and moral purity posturing that's taken over everywhere else on the web?
Funny, I was going to ask if we couldn't keep the shitty GamerGate mindset off of here.
Sincerely,
SJW
posted by yerfatma at 09:30 AM on June 10, 2016
posted by rcade to rejecting the bros at 05:00 PM - 8 comments
posted by tron7 at 11:01 AM on June 10, 2016
Before opening the link, two words came to mind: Craig Carton. Thank you for not disappointing me. Man is an incredible jerk.
posted by jjzucal at 12:25 PM on June 10, 2016
Christ(ie), what an asshole.
posted by Etrigan at 07:09 AM on June 11, 2016
Okay. So?
First, I still hold out hope that this site doesn't turn into the other *filter site.
Second, the "quotes" you put in this post imply these were things said by Christie... but were in fact said by the show's host, which is born out by the article and attached clips. Christie seems to have contributed little to those particular comments, simply added that he liked "Martina" when the host was mentioning top female players.
Third, so what?!? Even if Christie said all the things you quote, am I supposed to care, much less "do something"? For chrissakes, can't even this tiny little site off the beaten path be free from this childish culture of virtue signaling and moral purity posturing that's taken over everywhere else on the web?
So a radio host thinks athletic people can be attractive, and we were able to determine that another person will, over the course of four hours, also say something similar. Shocking. Amazingly, human beings find each other attractive, and frequently talk about it and think about it. It's not a sin, it's not opression, it's not a campaign against womenfolk... it's human beings, being human.