![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
airiefairie posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThe tennis world is once again abuzz after an exhibition match in which Nick Kyrgios defeated Aryna Sabalenka 6–3, 6–3 in the latest version of the Battle of the Sexes. Social media quickly filled with comments claiming that Kyrgios would "run over" any woman on court and that biology is a wall that cannot be overcome. But anyone who believes these matches are meant to prove that women are physically stronger than men is completely missing the point.
To understand why this debate is so painful, one must look far back in history. At the first modern Olympic Games in 1896, women were not allowed to compete at all. The founder, Pierre de Coubertin, believed their participation would be "impractical and unaesthetic". Women were not fighting for medals, but for the basic right to set foot in the stadium.
The real turning point came in 1973 with the legendary match between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs. Riggs, a typical chauvinist of his era, claimed that women's tennis was so inferior that even at 55 years old he could beat any top female player. His goal was to humiliate women's professionalism.
But the Battle of the Sexes is not about muscles; it is about respect. When King defeated Riggs in front of millions of viewers, she did not prove that women are physically stronger than men. She proved that women deserve to be taken seriously, that they possess the mentality of champions, and that their place on the biggest stage is indisputable.
Today, the same arguments about "physical superiority" are being heard again. Yes, biology is a fact, and no one denies that the men's serve is faster. But sport is not only about raw strength. Many men miss the essence of the issue: the question is not whether women should be identical to men in the sense of competing at exactly the same physical level. That is biologically impossible, and no one can change that fact.
The real goal is for women to be treated the same way as men. This is about fairness, and about valuing their efforts according to their own achievements, rather than always through the prism of male strength.
In the end, the debate is not about whether a man can beat a woman or vice versa. It is about honesty and dignity at a time when business and profit are not the only guiding forces. The Battle of the Sexes is a reminder that every athlete deserves recognition for their work within their own category, without being diminished because of their biological traits.
To understand why this debate is so painful, one must look far back in history. At the first modern Olympic Games in 1896, women were not allowed to compete at all. The founder, Pierre de Coubertin, believed their participation would be "impractical and unaesthetic". Women were not fighting for medals, but for the basic right to set foot in the stadium.
The real turning point came in 1973 with the legendary match between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs. Riggs, a typical chauvinist of his era, claimed that women's tennis was so inferior that even at 55 years old he could beat any top female player. His goal was to humiliate women's professionalism.
But the Battle of the Sexes is not about muscles; it is about respect. When King defeated Riggs in front of millions of viewers, she did not prove that women are physically stronger than men. She proved that women deserve to be taken seriously, that they possess the mentality of champions, and that their place on the biggest stage is indisputable.
Today, the same arguments about "physical superiority" are being heard again. Yes, biology is a fact, and no one denies that the men's serve is faster. But sport is not only about raw strength. Many men miss the essence of the issue: the question is not whether women should be identical to men in the sense of competing at exactly the same physical level. That is biologically impossible, and no one can change that fact.
The real goal is for women to be treated the same way as men. This is about fairness, and about valuing their efforts according to their own achievements, rather than always through the prism of male strength.
In the end, the debate is not about whether a man can beat a woman or vice versa. It is about honesty and dignity at a time when business and profit are not the only guiding forces. The Battle of the Sexes is a reminder that every athlete deserves recognition for their work within their own category, without being diminished because of their biological traits.
(no subject)
Date: 30/12/25 21:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/12/25 10:50 (UTC)"Aryna Sabalenka brutally questioned by ex-WTA player for accepting 'Battle of the Sexes' rules"
Former WTA player Alizé Cornet sharply criticized the modified rules in Aryna Sabalenka's 'Battle of the Sexes' exhibition against Nick Kyrgios in Dubai on December 28, 2025, calling the 9% smaller court on Sabalenka's side "absolutely ridiculous." The French retiree, known for her outspoken views, highlighted how the changes—including one serve per point for both—undermined the match's credibility despite organizers' intent to level the playing field. Other ex-players like Rennae Stubbs dismissed the event entirely, while Billie Jean King noted it lacked the social significance of her 1973 victory over Bobby Riggs. Sabalenka, who lost 6-3, 6-3, defended it as fun entertainment to grow tennis.
(no subject)
Date: 31/12/25 17:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/12/25 19:22 (UTC)If organizers brand something as a "Battle of the Sexes" they are deliberately invoking a historic, symbolic concept - not just a casual exhibition. Once you do that, credibility matters. The extreme rule modifications (a smaller court on only one side, altered serving conditions, etc) don't "level" anything. They distort it to the point where the result becomes meaningless. At that point, you're no longer showcasing tennis skill - you're staging a novelty.
And no, the point isn't to "re-prove" anything from 50+ years ago. The point is that if you invoke that legacy, you inherit its standards. Billie Jean King herself made that distinction: her match had social stakes, this one did not. Calling that out isn't being anti-fun, it's being honest about what the event actually was versus what the branding suggested.
If this had simply been marketed as a lighthearted exhibition, fewer people would object. The criticism is about presentation and integrity, not whether people were allowed to enjoy it.
(no subject)
Date: 31/12/25 19:45 (UTC)This kinda reminds me of the way the public and/or press have added "-gate" to about a thousand things over the last 50+ years as a shorthand for "scandal". "Bend-gate" to decry early iPhone models bending in pockets. "Pizza-gate" to hype up an absurd conspiracy theory. Et cetera. If I took to the forums to decry every dilution of what was, at the time, an epic scandal that changed the nature of politics in America, I would never catch my metaphorical breath...
(no subject)
Date: 31/12/25 20:11 (UTC)Your "-gate" analogy actually supports the point rather than undermines it. Most people do roll their eyes when that suffix is misused, precisely because it cheapens something that once had real weight. The fact that the shorthand persists doesn't make the criticism invalid, it just means the market tolerates dilution.
The same applies here. Using the "Battle of the Sexes" label is a choice, not an inevitability. When that label is applied to something that deliberately removes competitive coherence, it's reasonable for former players (whose careers give them a stake in how the sport is represented) to say: "This framing is misleading".
No one is claiming this is a crisis for tennis or that the event shouldn't have happened. The criticism is narrow: if you borrow a historically loaded concept, expect people to judge whether you've honored it or hollowed it out. Pointing that out isn't overreaction, it's basic accountability in how the sport markets itself.
(no subject)
Date: 31/12/25 20:28 (UTC)Because yeah, every instance of "-gate" has been a hollowing out. And I do find it absurd, and tend to take anything referenced that way less seriously. But, what if that's the point now? What if calling this event the "Battle Of The Sexes" is about pointing out the ways we take such conflicts much less seriously now? I mean, I don't think very many people these days are hotly debating whether a woman can play tennis or whether watching it would be an exciting demonstration of skill. That's pretty established now. After 50 years perhaps the label is being used in some different way.
(But perhaps my own shrug at this is based on my own perspective. Both my sisters were taught to play multiple sports from a very young age, and both went on to pay for most of their college years with athletic scholarships.)
Honoring a title or a concept is a weird business. Sometimes it seems like the basic fact that a historical concept can be used to make gobs of money and invoke sentimentality is proof that the concept is alive and well. You should see some of the borderline incomprehensible (to me) things that Black people are doing with culture and historical concepts here in Oakland...
(no subject)
Date: 31/12/25 20:39 (UTC)Where I still differ is on who gets to treat that legacy lightly, and what the effect actually is in practice.
It's plausible to argue that the label is now being used ironically or playfully. But irony only works when the audience broadly shares the same assumptions. In reality, a significant portion of the tennis audience still consumes this kind of event at face value, and the rule asymmetry becomes the headline. That's why the criticism is coming less from fans and more from former players: they're reacting to how women's tennis is presented, not to whether the sport has "won" the cultural argument already.
On whether it's "worth it": criticism doesn't have to imply outrage to be legitimate. Cornet wasn't calling for cancellation; she was questioning whether shrinking a woman's court sends the right message - especially when the men's game rarely accepts comparable handicaps in mixed or exhibition contexts. That asymmetry is exactly why the critique persists.
I also take your point about evolving cultural reuse and reinterpretation. But reinterpretation usually adds layers or flips perspective; here, the reuse strips away competitive meaning while keeping the symbolism. That's less reinvention and more commodification - profitable, yes, but not neutral.
So I don't see this as nostalgia policing or moral panic. It's a narrow, sport-specific question: if tennis no longer needs "Battles of the Sexes" to prove anything, why stage one in a way that reinforces the very imbalance it claims to move past?
(no subject)
Date: 31/12/25 21:12 (UTC)The rules were set by the management of both players, so I assume they were picked over pretty carefully, and approved by the players themselves. The claimed reason for the smaller court on one side was to balance the supposed greater foot speed of one player against the accuracy of the other, and it feels like a silly decision. If Sabalenka won it would have been seen as due to the smaller court, and since Kyrgios won it can now been seen as in spite of it. I don't know why they bothered to adjust the rules at all. But, this is what the players agreed on, so is it right for their historical counterparts to argue with them? They're both looking forward to a second match already, and the adjustment of the rules sure generated a lot of hype.
One of the sports both my sisters played was volleyball. They both freely acknowledge that if they'd played against teams of men in equivalent leagues, they would have usually lost ... and would have also enjoyed it less. One easy point for comparison is spiking the ball. In the men's competition the spikes are regularly harder and faster. My older sister put it like: "Every now and then you get hit in the face. If I knew it would give me a bloody nose every time, I'd be having less fun."
Injuries and bruises and so on still happened, and athletic competition was fierce, but in the volleyball league there was never a need - or a desire - to embrace direct competition with men (with or without identical rules) to legitimize the sport or to enjoy what they were doing. Sex was seen as a natural way to create two realms of competition because it was already being used to as a barrier to entry for any competition to happen at all, but while that frontier was being pushed forward, there wasn't any agreement that the end state was a single realm of competition that disregarded sex.
Do you see that as the only acceptable outcome? Identical sets of rules, because there should not be realm divisions across sex lines? Is the argument now that tennis involving women needs to be indentical in rules and standards to tennis involving men, or we are dishonoring women or failing as a society? I assume you don't. Because it's more complicated than that. And there's what fans want, and what tennis legends want, and what promoters with deep pockets want, and what networks want...
(no subject)
Date: 1/1/26 07:13 (UTC)The narrower point is simply this: once you choose to stage a cross-sex exhibition and choose to brand it as "Battle of the Sexes", the optics and implications of the rule changes matter more than they otherwise would. Yes, the players agreed to it, and yes, it generated hype. That doesn’t make it immune from critique - especially from former players whose careers are tied to how women’s tennis is framed historically.
So to answer your original question: the criticism is "worth it" not because the event was harmful or illegitimate, but because it exposes an awkward tension between marketing, symbolism, and sport integrity. That tension probably won’t be resolved - and it doesn’t need to be. But acknowledging it is reasonable, and I think we’ve basically converged on that.