There’s something that annoys here:
Traditional masculinity is programmed to look at the slighter, smaller, more delicately boned female and feel protective. It’s biology. Fine, but while protectiveness might be welcome in a dark lonely street or a jungleful of tigers, it easily slides into a warm sense of dominance. There’s a paternal desire to make decisions for the fragile creature’s own good, and a doubt as to whether a woman can do a tense and gruelling job. Suppose she cried? Or had some weird Woman’s Problem with her innards?
The presumption of helplessness can get internalised by women too, strengthened by the modish tendency to redefine normal weariness and frustration as “mental health” issues, and the new status in which victimhood wins you points.
Yep, very fine performance, she’s going to go on and win many more etc etc etc.
And yet what this isn’t is a proof that girls are the same as boys, that women are equal to all in everything which is the way that some are trying to play it.
Because she won in the women’s section of the competition. Anyone suggesting that she would have beaten Djokovic is insane. As that Williams Sisters against the Oz tab and beer taker episode showed.
Outstanding performance in a gender limited competition does not, in fact, show the equality – in all things, musculature etc – of the genders.
To nutshell it – woman wins women’s competition, this proves women are equal to men?