Serena Williams has faced some criticism for comments made during an interview with an Australian magazine.

On childbirth, she said: “I have so much respect for so many women [for giving birth], I am about to be a real woman now, you know? It’s going to be something incredibly impressive to go through.”

Later, during the same interview, Serena said: “I definitely am a feminist and I stick up for women and women’s rights”.

The criticism is centred around Serena’s use of the word “real woman” to describe her thoughts on childbirth.

Her sentiments angered some of her Twitter followers and fans who say that is wrong to claim that giving birth is what makes someone a real woman.

The attacks against Serena are misguided, as she was speaking only for herself and was not making a proclamation on behalf of all women. She should not be made to feel guilty for expressing her own thoughts and opinions during what is an exciting time as she prepares for her first child.

I don’t agree that giving birth is what makes a woman a “real woman”. The late Lydia Prince, who was wife to the late Christian preacher Derek Prince, had no children of her own and moved from her native Denmark to Israel, opened a children’s home and adopted eight girls. Some women cannot have children, others choose not to have children outside wedlock, and there are various other reasons why some women remain childless.

One of my favourite books is called Kingdom Woman by Dr Tony Evans, a Christian preacher based in Texas, and his daughter, Chrystal Evans Hurst. In the book, they stress the fact that “you don’t have to seek anyone else’s approval for the life God has given you.”

It is sad that some women would be so offended by Serena giving her own thoughts on her own situation.

I don’t concur with Serena’s sentiments, but she was speaking only for herself, and the notion that there should be a groupthink among all women, or that Serena cannot speak freely or must have her speech heavily policed to ensure that it aligns neatly with leftist feminist talking points, is absurd.

(Image: Tatiana)


  1. Of course you don’t have to give birth to be a ‘real’ woman. To see why not, consider the following questions. If not a ‘woman’ what are the females of the human race? When exactly does a female become a ‘real woman’? The moment of conception? The moment when the fertilised egg attaches itself to the wall of the womb? When she gives birth?

    It is not difficult to see why Serena upsets so many feminists (although in this case her choice of words would also have upset women who aren’t feminists). The greatest female tennis player of all time says that being a mother is more important to her than all of her professional achievements. How must someone far less accomplished professionally feel about not being a mother or about putting career ahead of family?

    Best wishes to Serena and all expectant mothers.

    • Sorry, just to add ….

      It’s a sign of the times when a writer has to defend the right to express an opinion that others find offensive. Perhaps those who respond abusively to comments they disagree with should bear this in mind: we are in a battle to protect the right to free speech.

      • Perhaps you’d care to define ‘free speech’, a phrase banded about a lot but one that may mean different things to different people. You clearly draw the line at abusive speech, as would many, but how ‘free’ is that? Comments made on TCW, abuse-free, if aired in public would see the speaker arrested for one of many ‘hate’ crimes, or ‘breach of the peace’, at least. So ‘free’ may also depend on context, and place. Gets complicated, this notion of ‘free’ speech, doesn’t it?

        • As with shouting Fire !! in a crowded theatre, context is everything
          That being said, there is unquestionably a fascistic left/liberal
          conspiracy at work both to stop unacceptable truths being told
          & to stop people who are not mainstream British being offended,
          even if they are not offended.

          • Indeed, and that is exemplified in the offence of a ‘racist’ ‘crime’ which may be deemed so by any casual observer even if no evidence of such exists, the observer only has to believe it to be the case. To misquote Joseph Heller/Captain Yossarian, “That’s some ‘law’, that definition of ‘racist’ law”.

        • I do not draw the line at abusive comments. ‘Free speech’ as an absolute right would prohibit nothing from being said or written. I, though, would draw the line at speech that incites or advocates violence as the right to ‘free speech’ would then conflict with another right, that to live free from violence. What I called for was for people to use the right to ‘free speech’ responsibly, that is to refrain from abuse and to either engage in argument or to simply pass making a comment. I am fully aware that the concept of ‘hate crimes’ is being used to limit free speech. That is why I called for people to protect the principle.

      • It’s always been a ‘sign of the times’, it’s nothing new; the article is composed – knowingly or otherwise -around Evelyn Beatrice Hall’s summation of Voltaire’s philosophy on such matters, the much-quoted, “I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. Voltaire said similar things, but not actually that exact phrase.

    • It is very easy to upset feminists because they are constantly on the alert for offence.

      Nature produced male and females with one ultimate goal in mind: to procreate. All your fancy language, theories, intellect, beliefs and whatever cannot refute that fact, and if a woman who cannot give birth, or chooses not to, at some point feels ‘less’ of a woman – and they do, just like men who cannot father a child – then that is life. Williams simply pointed out how many women feel after pregnancy/birth and – so she thought – felt sufficiently secure in her position to say so, but of course, every word uttered beyond what feminism deems acceptable is a step nearer a trap.

    • 100 odd years of social engineering and feminism will not trump(excuse the pun) millions of years of behavioural and evolutionary development.
      Fundamentally we are designed for one purpose and that is to procreate the next generation and our instincts will always find a way to show themselves when we do not fulfil that goal.
      If you spend your entire life fulfilling your own personal desires then you will die a true death; alone and forgotten which unfortunately is the fate of many career women who have forgotten why they are here.

      • It will probably afflict even more men, men who either had no family or who walked out on their families. Many of these men struggle to form social networks for mutual support and will struggle once they become dependent on non-existent support.

        We are in the middle of a social experiment that started with the breakdown of the family. Given the length of the experiment – effectively the typical lifetime – most of use are unaware that it is even going on.

  2. Yet woman who have babies often report feeling ‘complete’, fulfilled, and women are prepared to go to extreme lengths to have a baby with multiple fertility treatments, donors, and surrogates and those who cannot often feel unfulfilled and ‘less’ of a woman and this has been the case long, long, long before Williams made her comments. I’m surprised no-one has yet found blame to allot to men. My, what a pickle some women are getting themselves in.

  3. You are spot on Tamara. I don’t agree with the concept that only mothers are ‘real women’ but that is just my view.
    If Serena thinks that way then she is entitled to hold that view. I don’t think any less of her.
    Whatever happened to ‘live and let live’.

    • My guess is that Serena is simply noting that being pregnant and thinking about children changed some of her thinking, and I suspect that is true for most of us. There’s a tyranny in trying to say what you mean in 140 characters.

  4. Writes the authoress: “The attacks against Serena are misguided, as she was speaking only for herself and was not making a proclamation on behalf of all women”. Yet feminists do precisely that, regardless of how a woman may wish to conduct her life free from feminist orthodoxy.

  5. Yes indeed. Particularly as the same critics drone on about the importance of “feelings” and women being free to express them! Its not as though she was expressing the desire for some political policy or anything other than her own feelings about her life. I suppose on the up side I suspect the furores around such things reflect badly on the offence takers.

  6. I doubt Williams, even though she describes herself so, is a feminist, at least what a ‘pure’ feminist’s view of a feminist is. My mother (1935-2015) stood up for herself, ‘wore the trousers’ in our house and would have gagged at being so described; she was cleverer than feminists, because she understood the power of a woman in all its form – wiles, guile, femininity, and the ace card – the value of displaying apparent ‘helplessness’ and she did all with a smile and in good humour – a my dad never knew what hit him, but didn’t resent it or feel emasculated, either. My granny was much the same.

  7. Well said! “Progressives” have intentionally made it almost impossible to speak on any of the issues they are using to undermine Western society so their lies go unchallenged, gender definitions being one such warhorse! As progs become more and more unfair and viciously critical, more and more they will dig their own ideological graves! They are overplaying their hand! Well done Serena!

    • I wish I could share in your optimism. ‘Progressives’ now infect all public, and many private, institutions and organisations in sufficient quantities to place the balance of power in their hands. Even erudite, tolerant, intellectual people are brow-beaten into submission by the momentum of their machine.

      The thing is, outside, in what may be termed the larger, more realistic world, such a machine holds no thrall or sway in the minds of the public at large, regardless of political or religious affiliation, it is simply that the force of law is now such that dissent or resistance is, in true ‘the Borg’ manner, futile.

      I find many meople are just putting their heads down into the wind hoping they can navigate their way through the storm. We need a movement in this country that fights this oppression; it should be the Tories, but they have been infiltrated, too, and conservatism has been sacrificed at the altar of appeasement – and, courtesy of Chamberlain, we all know what that can lead to.

      • Yes, you are probably right! You caught me on a good day! 😉

        I do think that the Brexit/Trump phenomenon is a sign of push back against those who would turn the West into some sort of an Orwellian (dys)utopia. The problem, as you mention, is that subversive progressives have been playing the “long” game quietly working their way into positions of power and influence so as to manipulate our system. Let’s not give up just yet but continue to “fight the good fight”!

  8. Why are we obsessed with what a minority of vocal eternally offended and victimised activists think.
    The MSM seems to have just become the mainstream outlet for re-tweets.
    Don’t feed the Trolls!

  9. No word from the resident English nut yet (I’m assuming that he/she/it is English)? Apropos of English nuts: how many are there, apart from him/her/it? I recall that we have chestnuts, hazel nuts, walnuts and cob nuts; are there any others?

Comments are closed.