Andy Murray Interrupts Reporter’s Sexist Question To Stop Casual Sexism, And His Interview Goes Viral

His mum was the one who tweeted. Hence the reference to his mum. Perhaps if his dad had made a statement to support his son as well there would be grounds to acknowledge that in a random comment.

Nick - do you see me laughing? I was merely explaining - in entirely neutral terms, so I don't know why you're offended - why Carolina might have praised the mum and why there was no casual sexism involved. It may make you feel 'smart' to go "AHA look I caught you out in casual sexism too", but in this case there was simply no grounds to imply such an attitude in Carolina's comment. Andy Murray's mum tweeted to support her son, obviously any references would be in first instance made to her. And, bef you say "lmao then y u so butthurt then about reporter's comment in a male tournament", she didn't say "ALL thanks goes to your mamma for raising you right", which would have baselessly ignored the father's achievements, and equivalent to what this reporter essentially did to women by saying Murray was the "FIRST US player".

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Sheralyn, you're the 'casual' report in this case, 'casually' laughing it off.

Hes hypersensitive

To unnecessarily prove a point or maybe he was getting annoyed that women weren't getting the same coverage. I don't know, I just watched the same 30 second video you did except I didn't jump to any conclusions.

Part 2: Why do you think male football players get paid more than female players? That is because they reel in millions more viewers than female football players. You can't force people to be interested in female football so that there's more equality, people just prefer to watch men play the sport. If you sat me down to watch female football, I wouldn't stick around at all, and that's because I'm just not interested. Do I have to pretend to be? I'm all for equality, but there comes a point where the attempt to make the world equal just gets irrational, to a point like this article for example.

Part 3: If the focus in on men in the sport. Sheralyn, answer me this. How will the world be a better place if women were to have been included in the interview? Would you go about your day feeling a satisfying buzz in your core because your sex was mentioned by a reporter you probably didn't know about until reading this article? Tell me also, why if you want equality that the name "feminism" refers more to women with "fem" than it does for men. How would you feel if we called it "meninism"? Why can't we settle on "equalism"? It has a good ring to it and it will make men happier to associate themselves as equalists. I'm not a feminist, but I am an equalise. I believe in quality for people, not equality for males and females - that's when we are segregated. I hope you don't shrug off this logic, even though it might contradict what you stand for. Lots of people will not agree with this because all the time they spent advocating feminism... well... now feminism is irrelevant because...

Part 2: What I'm saying is that feminists basically hate men. Men can't be mentioned in an interview without women because women will feel excluded. When men aren't mentioned in interviews, we don't really feel bothered. We just move on with life with more important things, and that's something that will never come across to any of you on this article because you happen to nitpick at little things in life like this, and you're looking at it in terms of the war of sexes instead of a person winning a gold medal, which sounds more neutral than male and female. Now, I don't mind the use of the words "male" and "female". But if you're so upset that a woman wasn't mentioned in the interview, look at it in terms of the male that was mentioned is a human, which is what we all are, and the woman not mentioned is a human too, so we aren't different after all. Back to your analogy, the focus is on men in the interview and not women, so how is it sexist if women aren't mentioned if the focus is...

Radical feminists nitpick at the smallest things most people don't even notice. And the fact that people don't even notice means that it's not hurting anyone. So why are we supposed to stop and micro-analyse what we say about different sexes every time we talk about them in order to keep the conversation neutral for both sexes, meaning one isn't more in favour of the other. Maybe the spotlight is on men and tennis during an interview, an interview will come along in the future about women's tennis, it doesn't have to all be crammed into one interview. If you really root for equality, your analogy defeats the purpose because you're segregating males and females as tennis players. Look at it more as people, instead of sexes, therefore a person won the first gold medal instead of a male or female. That's equality.

Sheralyn, I'll have to disagree with you and here are my reasons why. He was interviewing a male tennis player, so why can't he ask the male tennis player about other male tennis players? Journalism is about words, yes, but a question which doesn't involve women is a valid question. Why must it involve both genders? And if you look at the interview, Murray "interfers: Male Player." So, the reporter didn't even pose the question. The reporter seems even confused afterwards because Murray put words in his mouth. There wasn't a correction needed because the reporter didn't make a mistake! What do you expect, for Murray to praise women and make all of you feel flattered? If it's an interview about the male player, let it be what it is and stop trying to have a bit of the spotlight. In time, I think Serena will be interviewed about women in tennis. And there was nothing to "let it slide" because nothing sexist was said in the first place.

Part 4: because equalism is the new movement. Not one that favours one sex in the name than the other. Thank you for reading.

Thank you for your replies. I do sense you are genuinely frustrated by hysterical complaints from radical feminists because frankly, I am too. Nevertheless just as there are radical Islamists there are also radical feminists, and I hope that you don't take them as representing the entire feminist movement. With that hope, here's my answer to your replies. No one's forcing anyone to be interested in anything or forcing equality - that's misrepresenting the position by exaggeration. It boils down to how he said "first US player". To use an analogy, if the first Olympic gold medalist of country X had been female, and later a male had won a gold medal as well, would you still say he was the "first gold medalist" of country X? No, becos that's plainly inaccurate. Anyone making such a statement would rightfully be labelled sexist. Why then, should the equivalent principle not be applied here?

typo: "...by default, he doesn't address them at all."

You contradicted yourself on that one by writing baby boy! It was a question brought up during a press conference with a MALE tennis player! How can you and a whole bunch of people even begin to believe that is was a sexist comment?????

WTF!?