Serena Williams is full of it

Caption: This is not a victim. This is an over-privileged bully.

When Samuel Johnson declared that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, he wasn’t denouncing patriotism in itself (a virtue he fulsomely praised many times). What he was attacking was the sort of insincere tub-thumping shows of virtue that are so often the resort of hypocrites trying to cover up for their moral failings.

Jesus, too, fulminated against moral hypocrites who tried to honey their base motives with fine-sounding words.

But patriotism is out of favour with the hypocritical elites, these days. The refuge of modern scoundrels is victimhood.

But all the cry-bullying whining in the world isn’t immune to simple facts. When Serena Williams claimed that she wasn’t having an unedifying, bullying temper-tantrum because she was getting soundly beaten, but it was all about “sexism” and “women’s rights”, she was just plain full of it. Quote:

Male players are almost three times more likely to be fined for losing their temper and smashing racquets than their female counterparts, despite Serena Williams’ claims of gender bias.

Men were slapped with 1517 fines compared to 535 fines for ­females, according to data compiled by officials at grand slam tournaments for the period covering 1998 to 2018.

The figures, obtained by The New York Times, show that men received 649 fines for breaking racquets to 99 for women in tens of thousands of matches in the four grand slams over the past two decades. Men were fined 344 times compared to 140 for “audible obscenity” and 287 to 67 for unsportsmanlike conduct. End of quote.

Still, there is some grim humour in watching these twits tie themselves up in self-contradictory knots, as they try and defend the indefensible. Quote:

Supporters of Williams, who last week blamed sexism when she was penalised for receiving on-court coaching, smashing a racquet and abusing a chair umpire during the US Open final, have claimed the figures prove nothing. Many took to social media to claim the statistics published in The Times were merely a reflection of the fact women play three-set matches rather than five and that male players are guilty of more infringements. End of quote.

So, all that whining about a supposed “gender pay-gap” in professional tennis boils down to women wanting to be paid the same as men, for doing only 60% of the same work. Quote:

Williams accused chair umpire Carlos Ramos of being a “liar” and a “thief” after she was cited for verbal abuse during the US Open women’s final against Japan’s Naomi Osaka.

“Because I’m a woman you are going to take this away from me?” she said to the tournament referee Brian Earley. “That is not right.” End of quote.

No, it’s because you’re a screaming, bullying creep, who tries to hide behind the skirts of fake victimhood even as you’re drunk on your own monstrous privilege. Quote:

She also…threatened to make sure the Portuguese umpire never worked another match of hers again. End of quote.

For which I’m sure he’d be truly grateful. The pathetic sum of $675 is surely not enough for any workin’ stiff to have to put up with the abuse of a mega-rich baboon’s backside. She might get away with subjecting the Mexican servants to that kind of vile degradation behind the secure walls of her palatial Florida mansion, but when she screams and bullies in the public spotlight, she can expect at least some people to call her out on it.

One group may well be prepared to act: umpires are threatening to boycott all of Williams’ future matches. Here’s hoping they do: lying, over-privileged, hypocritical bullies need to have their unmerited soapbox summarily pulled out from under them.


Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

Who is Lushington D. Brady?

Well, a pseudonym. Obviously.

But the name Lushington Dalrymple Brady has been chosen carefully. Not only for the sum of its overall mien of seedy gentility, reminiscent perhaps of a slightly disreputable gentlemen of letters, but also for its parts, each of which borrows from the name of a Vandemonian of more-or-less fame (or notoriety) who represents some admirable quality which will hopefully animate the persona of Lushington D. Brady.

To read my previous articles click on my name in blue.

Listen to this post:
Voiced by Amazon Polly
31%