Things People Say: Gimelstob, Jaeger, and Carlos
Justin Gimelstob, Andrea Jaeger, and John Carlos all shot their mouths off when they should have known better.
One way to explain it is to say that Justin Gimelstob had a meltdown. During an appearance on a Washington based radio show a few weeks ago, he called Anna Kournikova a “bitch” and a “douche.” Actually, let’s get the full impact of his comments about Kournikova, shall we? Here’s a start. When asked if he hated Kournikova, Gimelstob said:
Hate’s a very strong word, I just despise her to the maximum level, right below hate. I think she falls into the Marcelo Rios ‘Scumbag’ category….And this whole bluff about her retiring because of her back? She had the yips on her serve, she can’t get her serve on the court. Wait until you see on July 23, she’s gonna be serving 40 miles an hour and I’m gonna be just plugging it down her throat….We do exhibitions together and I’ll mock her, and make fun of her. I’ll just make her know that she’s stupid.
(Gimelstob’s team will play Kournikova’s team in a World Team Tennis match on July 23rd.)
When asked if he’d date Kournikova he said:
Definitely not. I have no attraction to her because she’s such a douche. I really have no interest in her … I wouldn’t mind having my younger brother, who’s a kind of a stud, nail her and then reap the benefits of that.
As soon as I picked my jaw up off the floor, my first thought was, Why does Gimelstob hate Kournikova so much? He wants to shove a ball down her throat and get a surrogate to “nail” her. He may have been referring to sex, but the image of stud and nail sounds more like rape.
I think the root of Gimelstob’s vitriol is a deep insecurity because here’s the thing: Kournikova’s career was more successful than Gimelstob’s. Neither player won a singles title, Kournikova reached four singles finals to Gimelstob’s one singles final, Kournikova has 16 doubles titles to Gimelstob’s 13, and two of Kournikova’s doubles titles are slams. I think Gimelstob is afraid that he’s another pretty face who didn’t do much in his career and his already low opinion of women is challenged by Kournikova’s popularity.
What bothers me most about this situation is the tacit approval of Gimelstob by the ATP. Officials of the ATP issued a statement decrying Gimelstob’s comments. but they accepted his apology as an adequate correction to his actions. This is how they put it:
However, he has done the right thing in taking full responsibility for his comments by apologising publicly to Anna for what he has rightly described as his disappointing and disrespectful comments.
Justin Gimelstob is on the board of directors of the ATP, people, and he still has his job. It’s not just the officials of the ATP either. Gimelstob was voted onto the board of directors by the ten member Player Council and those players haven’t removed him. And that leads me to believe that Gimelstob didn’t have a meltdown at all.
Gimelstob was sitting around with his friends The Junkies at the radio station that day (check out that link by the way to see what The Junkies think of women) much as he might sit around with his buds on a Friday night. And much as he might sit around an ATP locker room talking about women with his pro tennis buds.
And that’s the scariest part of all. Not just that this might have been normal behavior for Gimelstob, but it might be normal behavior for other players too.
Gimelstob wasn’t the only former tennis player to open his mouth when he shouldn’t have. In a Daily Mail article titled, Why I became a nun, by former tennis star Andrea Jaeger, Andrea Jaeger tells us that she threw her 1983 Wimbledon final against Martina Navratilova.
In the early 1980’s, Jaeger was a bright young tennis star with an abusive and demanding father for a coach. By the age of 16 she was the number two player in the world but her heart wasn’t in it. According to Jaeger, after she beat Wendy Turnbull, Turnbull pulled out a bottle of wine and asked Jaeger for a corkscrew. Jaeger decided that she’d driven the poor lady to drink and from that point forward, she tried her best to lose to Turnbull whenever they played. Not only that, but she did her best to beat anyone who had the audacity to beat Turnbull. She became, as it were, Turnbull’s unspoken protector.
Her semifinal opponent at Wimbledon in 1983, Billie Jean King, had beaten Turnbull in the previous round and that, Jaeger says, was one of the reasons she trounced King 6-1, 6-1. The final with Navratilova was next but not until a bit of drama intervened.
Jaeger had a bad fight with her father the afternoon before the final and she fled the house she was sharing with him. She went next door to Navratilova’s house and pounded on the door till someone let her in and helped her find a taxi. According to Jaeger:
Martina was sitting in the living room. She glanced round at me briefly with a look on her face to say that I’d interrupted her preparation for the final. She stayed seated and didn’t look at me again.
I’m not buying it. A brief, unspoken glance from your opponent the night before the match doesn’t qualify as motivation for throwing a match. And that’s poor nunnery, anyway. The goal of a spiritual practice is to renounce the fruits of your labor, not crow about them 25 years later and take away what you supposedly gave, in all your goodness, to your opponent. Saying that you threw the match is tantamount to taking a Wimbledon title away from Martina because that means she didn’t win it on her own merit.
I’m not saying that Jaeger didn’t throw the match, but Turnbull had a 7-4 record over Jaeger after the wine bottle incident and that certainly doesn’t support Jaeger’s assertion that she did her best to lose to Turnbull. Memory does strange things and in Jaeger’s case, she’s seems to have refigured the past as an act of giving rather than the act of an angry, confused young woman who had major problems with an overbearing father.
In last week’s issue of Sports Illustrated, John Carlos does a similar bit of manipulation but for a different reason. Tommie Smith and Carlos were the two brave men who lowered their heads and raised their black-gloved fists in the Black Power salute at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico after they’d taken the gold and bronze medals in the 200 meter race.
Carlos now claims he threw the race even though he’d pulled a leg muscle in the semifinal heat and Smith won the race in a world record time that stood for eleven years. Carlos also claims that the symbolic and enduring protest was his idea while Smith says it was his. We don’t know whose idea it was – and who cares? - but how desperate must you be for a bigger slice of history if you need to play “I didn’t lose, I let you win” after losing to your friend and opponent in a world record time?
Don’t get me wrong, I revise the past all the time. When my sisters come out to visit me every year, I often finish recounting a memory only to hear them say, in unison, “You’re totally wrong, that never happened.” We all do it. We create a past that fits our current image of ourselves. I’m writing an article that has a few memories of my father at the moment, but I’ll run it past my family before I publish it and I wish Jaeger had run her thoughts past Turnbull and Navratilova before she spoke. As for Carlos and Smith, it’s probably too late to do anything.
This entry was posted
on Friday, July 18th, 2008 at 11:23 pm and is filed under Anna Kournikova, Justin Gimelstob, Billie Jean King, Martina Navratilova, ATP Players, WTA Players.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
THE AUTHOR
POLL
Adobe Flash Plug-in Needed
This website requires a Adobe Flash plug-in. Please download the latest version of the Flash plug-in by clicking here
ARCHIVE
SPONSORS
11 Responses to “Things People Say: Gimelstob, Jaeger, and Carlos”
July 19th, 2008 at 10:15 am
If Gimelstob had said equally offensive things about blacks or Jews he would have been fired, no questions asked, no empty I’m-sorry-I-got-caught apology accepted. Misogyny is alive and well in the world and sadly still an acceptable form of hate.
July 19th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Gimelstob should have been fired!!! Others have been fired for saying a lot less. I guess it pays to have friends in high places. Sooner or later he will go farther and maybe then justice will prevail.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
When I first heard about Gimpy’s comments, I could not believe my ears. He seemed like a decent respectful guy. I wished he had just trashed Pornikova for being a joke as a tennis player, which she is, without laying on the nastiness. Haven’t many of us said/thought similar of her over the years? :0) I know I have! But then again, I don’t live around open mics, and it seems like the world has become one. He probably should have been fired, but then again it’s Pornikova, and I am sorry she had to be the one to lay him low (well maybe not low enough in some readers’ views).
Kind of makes me wonder…if I were a fly on the wall of the men’s locker room in Toronto next week, what would I hear about my own sex? I’ve heard male tennis players publicly say some pretty disparaging things over the years about female tennis players, guys we all know, so it kinda makes me wonder what the general attitude is about women in said locker room. I like to think there may be a few gentlemen there :0)
As for Andrea…well, first she was a tennis player and then she became a nun. I’m sure there’s a joke running around here somewhere….let me think about it and I’ll get back to you. Right now I have to run and gaze again upon the draw up in Toronto. It may be good to be Roger this week.
July 19th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
I’ve worked as a volunteer at more than one ATP event, including the tournament desk in the player’s lounge. Justin wasn’t speaking like a misogynist, he was speaking like a tennis player (and athlete in general). Trust me, nail her, tap that, I’d hit it, bitch, douche, skank, groupie, and so on are all part of their ‘manly vernacular’. Thankfully, they moslty reserve this type of conversation to use amongst themselves and behave better in public, in mixed company, and around women.
Justin (who also has two slams in mixed doubles) is not jealous of Anna, nor is he bitter from some past rejection by her. He just dislikes her, and we all have someone we dislike in this world (but none of us talk about it on the radio). He is a typical single male - fascinated by women, mystified by them, and probably even a little bit intimidated by them.
July 20th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Thanks (Withheld) for telling us because that’s what I suspect happens. There’s something else going on too because Gimelstob wrote in his S.I. blog awhile ago that he felt bad for the female players because they get outshone by the supermodels that the male players hang out with. And yet here he is blasting the one player who is closest to being a supermodel. It seems a bit like the the Madonna (the original one, not the celebrity)/whore complex. A man wants a Madonna for a wife but a whore to have sex with and so he trashes the whore/sexy supermodel type for corrupting him.
July 20th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
But he’s not blasting Anna K because of her looks, he has his reasons and he gave a few of them in that interview (I heard the whole thing). He’s known her for years, he thinks she’s phony and whatever. Anna K is a successful woman (not a girl as so many have called her) and obviously she is tough enough and smart enough to take a pass on this entire issue and ignore Justin’s remarks completely. The WTT is smart enough to see this for the cash cow that it is, which is why Justin was not suspended for the match against her. SI.com gave in to the pressure and took away his column, the USTA gave in and took away the USO commercials that were funny and made the other players look good at Justin’s expense (3 of the original ads were posted on Venus’ website).
The ATP Player Council hired Justin for the board (unpaid position) and they are the ones with the power to remove him. Obviously, since they are tennis players who ’speak the language’ they are more sympathetic to the trouble he got into. They are not going to fire him, they’ve been calling him to give him their support (according to a Junkies follow up show).
I’m a woman and as much as I want to slap Justin for a few of the things he said, I’m more angry at the women who called him a useless, second rate hack, then proceeded to give him more publicity than he’s ever had in his life. In the short term, he lost a few gigs, but in the long run this may not hurt him as much as they had hoped, so other than costing the USTA a lot of money to re-edit those commercials, how did we really benefit from this overblown mess?
July 20th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
The Gimelstob thing was clearly a personal issue between him and Kournikova. Why is it always described as misogyny when a man criticizes a woman or has a run in with her? If a woman calls a man an idiot, bastard, wanker or asshole, we don’t describe her as a man hater or misandrist. Gimelstob was not referring to all women, his comments were clearly directed at Kournikova, for his own personal reasons. I mean, his comments sound over the top, but I understand the nature of the show he was on encourages mindless babbling, so it probably seems worse out of context. His diatribe was not exclusively directed at a woman. It seems he also thinks Marcelo Rios is in the same ’scumbag’ category as Kournikova. Where are his defenders? Speaking of defenders, I understand Federer and Agassi, as well as a number of other players, have called Gimelstob to give him their support. Not for his comments, but against the media backlash, which he obviously has to bear some responsibility for.
Regarding locker room banter. Surely women must know by now any closed, testosterone fuelled environment is going to see a lot of sexually suggestive banter directed at women. These are fully functioning, heterosexual men we are talking about, mostly, not eunuchs. There is always going to be a side to men that most women will never know, but that’s not to say they do not respect people who are worthy of it, women included.
July 20th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Hi David, How did you learn that some of the players have called to give Gimelstob support about the media backlash?
It wasn’t just the name calling, it was the desire to nail her both sexually and physically. That goes farther than name calling and if he’d been in any other sport, I think he’d have been suspended from his television job, or worse, by now.
When Kelly Tilghman joked that Tiger Woods’ opponents should lynch him, she was suspended. That’s racism, not hatred of men, but I’m trying to remember a woman who is a public figure lashing out in a hate filled tirade at men. Can anyone remember one? I’m sure there have been more than a few.
The issue is not whether men or women do it, both men and women should be suspended in that case and Gimelstob was not. Also, I would say that language changes when, for example, racism decreases or there is more equality between genders. Police officers used to use racial terms when talking on their radios about blacks, and homophobic comments used to be very common. As those issues change in our culture, the language changes too and there’s every reason to expect that even locker room language can change.
July 21st, 2008 at 12:22 am
I learnt about the Federer and Agassi calls from a female friend of Gimelstob. I’m totally indifferent when it comes to Gimelstob generally. Well, not totally indifferent. The guy’s a goofball, and not just because of this incident. He doesn’t interest me as a person, positively or negatively, and I am not defending his comments. Nor do I think he should have got off scot-free. A few sanctions are entirely deserved, given he has some public responsibilities.
What does interest me is the double standard we often see in the press regarding what can be directed at men and women, and the accusation of misogyny every time a man is less than complimentary to a woman. Although Gimelstob’s comments were crass and provocative, I don’t think they necessarily indicate evidence of a hatred for women or intent to literally harm Kournikova or women generally. Obviously he doesn’t like her, but what he directed towards her was mostly abuse about her supposed ’stupidity’ and ‘ineptitude’ or undesirability as a sexual conquest. He called her a bitch, douche, scumbag, stupid, said he more than hated her and was going to kick her butt, figuratively obviously. Asked if he found her attractive, he said he was not interested, but his brother could “nail” her if he wanted i.e. have sex with her. All pretty strong, no question. Like I said, the guy is a goofball and deserves some censure, but what about these comments is misogynistic? I agree they are abusive and not very chivalrous, but not misogynistic. That’s not to say he isn’t a misogynist. He may or may not be for all I know, but how can anyone tell from these comments?
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:57 am
Nina, I have to disagree with the hysterical exaggeration that has occurred around Justin’s comments. I’ve seen him accused of advocating rape and violence towards women and it’s utter BS. He said he was going to fire a body serve at her and hit fierce returns off her cotton candy serve, but he was talking specifically about a tennis match not a street fight. He was talking about Anna as a competitor and if women can’t handle trash talk about a mixed doubles match, then it’s time to put an end to mixed doubles and protect us fragile women from that environment.
His euphemism for one night stand/casual sexual encounter (’nail her’) was crass and beneath a man of his alleged intelligence, but I’ve heard that phrase countless times on TV, etc, and as long as women keep giving it away for free (because Sex and the City has taught us that it’s a way to express ourselves) then how can we protest when men talk about it and brag to their friends (”reap the benefits”).
He made one general comment about the women of the WTA, and it has been misqoted. When asked if there was a lot of dating between the WTA and ATP players he said (paraphrasing) ‘No, they’re not like typical teenagers. The WTA players are very isolated within their camps and they keep to themselves. They didn’t go to high school with other kids, they don’t go to lots of parties, they lack those types of social skills.’
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Hi Withheld, well, this is a tough subject. For a woman to have sex with someone is looked at as a commodity. It can be given away for free or held onto to extract a commitment. From an evolutionary point of view that’s because a woman needs someone to provide for her and her children while she raises them. And it is true that there are a lot of 40 year old women deciding to have children as single women because it’s harder to find men to marry. My tennis coach recently found out he’s going to become a father because his girlfriend got pregnant and she’s older and this might be her last chance to have a child. So you could say that women are single more now because they give away sex, but you could also say that women are single more now because they can support themselves, and their children if necessary.
And, Gimelstob is demeaning not because women are more willing to have sex - a possible sign of more equality - but because there is already a demeaning attitude in place. There’s no excuse to be demeaning to a man who likes to have sex or a woman who likes to have sex. Listen to Jim Rome’s radio show sometimes. You’ll hear the word skank and you’ll hear a clone trashing someone from another city by saying that “all the women in Cleveland are ugly.” And don’t get Rome started on WNBA or women’s soccer. I once made an animation of his head being knocked off by a soccer ball. The ball replaced his head - i.e. he’s full of air - because he refused to give Mia Hamm her due on the occasion of her retirement.
I agree that nailing someone as a term for having sex, and, by itself, I might have just rolled my eyes, but the total viciousness of his comments was much more than eye opening and it’s nothing that new, I just thought we were further along than that.
Leave a comment