tennis players – Michmutters
Categories
Sports

Serena William’s retirement from tennis is proof women can’t have it all

Earlier this week one of the most successful and celebrated athletes of all time – 23-time Grand Slam winner – Serena Williams announced her retirement from tennis.

While the news was most definitely headline generating, the reason behind it was far from a shock.

The 41-year-old’s decision, explored in an ‘as told to’ article in Vogue, outlined that she was retiring, partly, in order to expand her family.

“Something’s got to give,” she said. And unfortunately, as sexist, unfair and outdated as this may be, she’s right.

“Believe me, I never wanted to have to choose between tennis and a family,” she wrote.

“I don’t think it’s fair. If I were a guy, I wouldn’t be writing this because I’d be out there playing and winning while my wife was doing the physical labor of expanding our family.

“These days, if I have to choose between building my tennis resume and building my family, I choose the latter.”

In response to this, some have criticized Williams for using motherhood as an excuse, as if retirement is some sort of cop-out for not being a good enough tennis player.

I read comparisons between her and past female tennis players who competed after having children, putting them up on nonsensical pedestals because they didn’t use being a mum as an excuse for ‘giving up.’

While no, Williams has not won a Grand Slam Singles title since the Australian Open in 2017 (while pregnant with her daughter, a feat in its own right), not many other female players of the Open Era have either. In fact, there are only three – Kim Clijsters, Margaret Court and Evonne Goolagong Cawley.

The majority have found motherhood and professional tennis an unworkable combination.

Despite the challenges that arose, Williams still persevered and still succeeded, coming Runner Up in four Singles Grand Slams finals (yep, mum and all).

“I went from a C-section to a second pulmonary embolism to a grand slam final. I played while breastfeeding. I played through postpartum depression,” she said.

The biological inequality of being a woman is so difficult that it’s leading some professional tennis players with a desire to have it all (both career and family) to explore fertility options early in their careers.

Former Australian tennis player, Rennae Stubbs told ABC Radio National Breakfast: “I know players that want to have children, that want to have a family, have [frozen] their eggs, because they want to play until their mid-30s or 40s.

“So, they freeze eggs so they can have kids later on in life. But think about Tom Brady or Roger Federer or Rafa [Nadal] now; you can have children and keep playing because you’re not the one birthing it and taking nine months to have the child and then the recovery after the child.”

But it’s not just professional tennis players facing these challenges, elite athletes of all disciplines often struggle to find a workable way forward because there is a certain level of commitment that is expected, and this often means sacrificing other aspects of their life.

There is often also a peak performance window, usually in their 20s and 30s which coincides with fertility.

While yes, arguably it is possible to do both, there is no doubt that there would be additional costs, extra work and huge obstacles to overcome, including these fertility treatments, and for some, these just aren’t worth it.

In Williams’ case, this would have meant postponing having a second child in order to keep playing. Given she is 41, this may have meant giving up on extending her family for good.

“I definitely don’t want to be pregnant again as an athlete. I need to be two feet into tennis or two feet out,” she said.

While Williams says the choice is clear, the reality is, for her and many women it isn’t really a choice, and it is definitely not fair.

Regardless of what industry women work in, this situation, of having to choose between career or family, is prevalent and it’s not just a biological inequality but something more entrenched in our society and culture – you only need to look at paid parental leave to see Este.

Over the last decade, data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that 95 per cent of primary carer paid parental leave was taken by mothers, despite most primary carer paid parental leave schemes being accessible to both women and men.

Professor Marian Baird told Women’s Agenda that “Paid Parental Leave Act was “a giant leap forward” when it came out in 2010, but that it has “barely changed in a decade”.

“Our research shows that opening up opportunities for fathers to take paid carer leave will make significant headway towards gender equality,” said Professor Baird. “But after almost a decade since the Act was introduced, there’s been no movement in the duration of leave that’s accessible through paid secondary carer leave provisions like Dad and Partner Pay.”

While it’s easy to criticize anyone for their choices, the facts remain, as sexist and unfair as they may be – women can’t have it all – family and career – at least not at the same time. Williams is proof of that.

.

Categories
Sports

Serena William’s retirement from tennis is proof women can’t have it all

Earlier this week one of the most successful and celebrated athletes of all time – 23-time Grand Slam winner – Serena Williams announced her retirement from tennis.

While the news was most definitely headline generating, the reason behind it was far from a shock.

The 41-year-old’s decision, explored in an ‘as told to’ article in Vogue, outlined that she was retiring, partly, in order to expand her family.

“Something’s got to give,” she said. And unfortunately, as sexist, unfair and outdated as this may be, she’s right.

“Believe me, I never wanted to have to choose between tennis and a family,” she wrote.

“I don’t think it’s fair. If I were a guy, I wouldn’t be writing this because I’d be out there playing and winning while my wife was doing the physical labor of expanding our family.

“These days, if I have to choose between building my tennis resume and building my family, I choose the latter.”

In response to this, some have criticized Williams for using motherhood as an excuse, as if retirement is some sort of cop-out for not being a good enough tennis player.

I read comparisons between her and past female tennis players who competed after having children, putting them up on nonsensical pedestals because they didn’t use being a mum as an excuse for ‘giving up.’

While no, Williams has not won a Grand Slam Singles title since the Australian Open in 2017 (while pregnant with her daughter, a feat in its own right), not many other female players of the Open Era have either. In fact, there are only three – Kim Clijsters, Margaret Court and Evonne Goolagong Cawley.

The majority have found motherhood and professional tennis an unworkable combination.

Despite the challenges that arose, Williams still persevered and still succeeded, coming Runner Up in four Singles Grand Slams finals (yep, mum and all).

“I went from a C-section to a second pulmonary embolism to a grand slam final. I played while breastfeeding. I played through postpartum depression,” she said.

The biological inequality of being a woman is so difficult that it’s leading some professional tennis players with a desire to have it all (both career and family) to explore fertility options early in their careers.

Former Australian tennis player, Rennae Stubbs told ABC Radio National Breakfast: “I know players that want to have children, that want to have a family, have [frozen] their eggs, because they want to play until their mid-30s or 40s.

“So, they freeze eggs so they can have kids later on in life. But think about Tom Brady or Roger Federer or Rafa [Nadal] now; you can have children and keep playing because you’re not the one birthing it and taking nine months to have the child and then the recovery after the child.”

But it’s not just professional tennis players facing these challenges, elite athletes of all disciplines often struggle to find a workable way forward because there is a certain level of commitment that is expected, and this often means sacrificing other aspects of their life.

There is often also a peak performance window, usually in their 20s and 30s which coincides with fertility.

While yes, arguably it is possible to do both, there is no doubt that there would be additional costs, extra work and huge obstacles to overcome, including these fertility treatments, and for some, these just aren’t worth it.

In Williams’ case, this would have meant postponing having a second child in order to keep playing. Given she is 41, this may have meant giving up on extending her family for good.

“I definitely don’t want to be pregnant again as an athlete. I need to be two feet into tennis or two feet out,” she said.

While Williams says the choice is clear, the reality is, for her and many women it isn’t really a choice, and it is definitely not fair.

Regardless of what industry women work in, this situation, of having to choose between career or family, is prevalent and it’s not just a biological inequality but something more entrenched in our society and culture – you only need to look at paid parental leave to see Este.

Over the last decade, data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that 95 per cent of primary carer paid parental leave was taken by mothers, despite most primary carer paid parental leave schemes being accessible to both women and men.

Professor Marian Baird told Women’s Agenda that “Paid Parental Leave Act was “a giant leap forward” when it came out in 2010, but that it has “barely changed in a decade”.

“Our research shows that opening up opportunities for fathers to take paid carer leave will make significant headway towards gender equality,” said Professor Baird. “But after almost a decade since the Act was introduced, there’s been no movement in the duration of leave that’s accessible through paid secondary carer leave provisions like Dad and Partner Pay.”

While it’s easy to criticize anyone for their choices, the facts remain, as sexist and unfair as they may be – women can’t have it all – family and career – at least not at the same time. Williams is proof of that.

.

Categories
Entertainment

Kate and William at Commonwealth Games shows where Meghan went wrong

Of all the gin joints, chintzy drawing rooms, Chelsea pub back rooms, Norfolk kitchens, and private members’ clubs in the UK; of all possible backdrops for a couple of deeply illuminating royal moments, whoever would have thought the 22nd Commonwealth Games in Birmingham would be it?

The first one took place outside a train toilet. really.

Matthew Syed is a journalist and Commonwealth Games gold medal winner – for table tennis, no less. This week, he and his son Ted were traveling to the Games to catch the action and he took to the pages of the Times to recount a truly extraordinary tale about the trip.

“Five minutes before pulling into [the Birmingham station], I use the bathroom (we are traveling first class) as Ted waits outside. As I am doing my thing, I hear him talking to a woman in the vestibule.

“They continue chatting as I use the soap, then tap, then dryer. Judging by the laughter, they are having a whale of a time… By the time I am finished, we are only a couple of minutes from the station.

“’Come on Ted,’ I say, ‘we have to get off!’

“’Oh, and thanks for keeping him company,’ I say, turning to the woman waiting [for] her turn when I am stopped in my tracks. My brow furrows, my face works. ‘Kate?’ I blurt out. There are no security guards in the vestibule; not armed guards. But here is the Duchess of Cambridge, chatting merrily with my son.”

Then we get to our second moment, starring Kate’s husband, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge in a chlorine-soaked aquatic center.

On Tuesday, the Duke, the Duchess and their daughter Princess Charlotte attended the swimming. While sitting in the middle of the crowd, he happily posed for a selfie with a group of Games volunteers who were seated in front of him.

Now, both of these instances could be filed under ‘Aw, aren’t they lovely?’ examples of two people who might be destined for coronations and crowns but who have not let their elevated status turn their heads.

But, this all comes after the publication of Tom Bower’s Revenge: Meghan, Harry And The War Between The Windsorsa 464-page full-frontal take-down of Harry and Meghan, Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

And this week’s William and Kate stories? Those two, simple, brief interactions with the public? Well, they go a way to underscoring one of his key arguments about him, which is that Meghan’s expectations of royal life were a world away from the often unglamorous reality. Think, more making polite chitchat outside a public loo than private jets and Pol Roger.

At the heart of Bower’s book is the contention that when Meghan, clad in several hundred thousand dollars worth of couture Givenchy, made her way up the aisle of the 15th century St George’s Chapel at Windsor, she had little understanding of, or interest in learning about, the fabled institution she was joining.

Having, for so many long years, failed to claw her way out of the B-list, here she was, finally, about to become one of the most famous women in the world. The case that Bower makes is that the California native’s assumptions about what would follow were markedly different from what was, in actual fact, about to come next.

In Bower’s telling, even before the opening strains of Handel’s Eternal Source Of Light Divinewhich played as she made her way towards the altar, things were going off the rails.

Pre-engagement, when the couple was dating, Bower says that after “Harry’s demand for a dedicated female bodyguard for Meghan had been approved” that on one occasion, he met the Duke “on the tarmac at Heathrow with a police escort”.

“Meghan sped out of the airport towards Kensington. This was indeed the super-celebrity lifestyle for which she had always yearned.”

Then in the run-up to the big day, Meghan already “was confusing being famous with being a royal,” he writes. However, “the royal world is expected to be one of altruism, history, tradition and low-key patronage for no personal gain.”

Meghan’s misconception, in Bower’s reading of the situation, is that she fundamentally mistook the global fame of the royal family with Hollywood stardom, not grasping that, despite having become a Duchess and been catapulted to the highest stratosphere of stardom, she was not therefore automatically entitled to Beyonce-worthy treatment.

Take the issue of luxury gifts. Bower writes: “Palace gossip related that the publicity departments of some famous designer labels – Chanel, Dior, Armani, Givenchy and others – had been surprised by calls from a member of Meghan’s staff with a request: Meghan would be delighted if the House were to bequeath a handbag, shoes or an accessory to Kensington Palace in the near future. These items would be treated as goodwill gifts, the publicists were told. The women were puzzled by what they called ‘the Duchess’s discount’.

“In the past, their offers of gifts to Kate had been rejected on principle that the royal family did not accept freebies. Meghan’s staff, it appeared, were not worried about that rule.”

The veteran biographer writes that it would only be in 2019 that the Duchess “began to understand that the British monarchy, costing the public just £85 million ($A148 million) a year, was neither flush with money nor an invincible luxury Rolls-Royce machine. The power and influence which she assumed to have acquired from her marriage to Harry was an illusion.”

In the summer of that same year, one particular Meghan incident made international headlines. Attending Wimbledon with a couple of friends, their party de ella sat in the middle of a sea of ​​empty seats for a match, unlike when Kate regularly attended and took her place de ella in the stands, sitting in the midst of other tennis fans.

At one stage during the match, when a man sitting in the section in front of Meghan’s, got up to take a selfie of himself with the players, one of the Duchess’ protection officers “warned him about taking pictures in her vicinity,” according to the Daily Mail.

Former BBC sports commentator Sally Jones was also courtside.

“I felt this tap on my shoulder and was asked not to take pictures of the Duchess – but I had no idea she was there until then. I was absolutely gobsmacked,” Jones told the Email.

That Meghan took umbrage (or someone on her team took umbrage) at anyone trying to take her picture, despite that she had chosen to sit in a public place, where there were live TV cameras, looked all too much like suspiciously diva-ish behaviour. .

Contrast that scene with the events this week in Birmingham: In each instance, we have members of the royal family, at sporting events yet demonstrating two starkly different approaches to royalty.

At the end of the day, what William and Kate seem to fundamentally understand is that royalty is not the same thing as celebrity; it is not about special treatment, favorable seats or four-figure accessories finding their way into your wardrobe, free. It is about tedious devotion to duty no matter how repetitive or dull it might often be. (How many times do you think the Queen has asked, “And what do you do?” In her life de ella? I think we could confidently say the figure would have to be in the hundreds of thousands.)

The meat and potatoes of royal life is not swanning off to New York for an A-list baby shower held in a $100,000-a-night hotel suite but sitting through hospital wing openings and charming pensioners.

Really, HRHs are part public servants, albeit ones who don’t have to contend with home brand tea bags in the office kitchen, and part politicians stuck on lifelong hustings, forever trying to win the public over one handshake and smile at a time.

None of this is any sort of secret; none of this is insider knowledge. So why wasn’t Meghan better prepared?

One of the points that the Duchess of Sussex made during the Sussexes’ infamous Oprah Winfrey interview last year was that she “didn’t do any research about what that would mean” to marry into the royal family.

“I didn’t feel any need to, because everything I needed to know, he was sharing with me. Everything we thought I needed to know, he was telling me,” Meghan said.

That turned out to be a bit of a mistake now kids, didn’t it?

That an intelligent, educated woman would give up her career, adopted homeland, one of her dogs, and all of her friends to move across the world to dedicate her life to an ancient institution she knew nothing about defies all logic.

If she had done even a cursory Google search, she might have come across an excellent piece that Patrick Jephson, Diana, Princess of Wales’ long-time private secretary, had written way back in 2006 called “What Kate Should Know” in which he imagined what advice his old boss might give the younger woman.

Jepshon argues that the Princess would have urged Kate, that “modesty must be your watchword” and to “go easy on the conspicuous consumption”.

He writes: “Remember that living in a very big house surrounded by servants and riding in a gold carriage are all the excess that your future subjects will readily tolerate in their royal family. Don’t overlook the priceless symbolic value of Tupperware boxes, and try to develop a famous enthusiasm for turning off unnecessary electric lights.”

The piece (you can read it here) is basically a very sensible warning: Don’t let the gilded trappings of royalty go to your head. Understand the job for what it really is and get on with it.

If only Meghan had read Jephson’s piece; if only she had gone into royal life with a much clearer sense of what she was signing up for. That’s not to say ella she should have swallowed it holus bolus once she got there or not have tried to inject at least something fresh into the creaky monarchy – but forewarned is forearmed.

If Meghan had done a spot of Googling, she might also have come across the famous essay written by the journalist and satirist Malcolm Muggeridge in 1955 at the height of Princess Margaret’s fling with Group Captain Peter Townsend. In the piece, Muggeridge argued that “the application of film star techniques” to the royal family would ultimately have “disastrous consequences”.

He also said that the monarchy was “an institution that is accorded the respect and accoutrements of power without the reality”.

And, if the former Suits star had read a bit more still, she would have learned that the reaction to Muggeridge’s essay was so swift and furious it forced him out of the Garrick Club. (What a horrendous!)

Taking on the monarchy is not for the faint-hearted but joining it? That’s for people happy to take trains, make small talk with the public and to pretend to like watching competitive bowls.

Daniela Elser is a royal expert and a writer with more than 15 years’ experience working with a number of Australia’s leading media titles.

Read related topics:Kate Middleton Meghan Markle

.