« Polynomials and apple pie: Andrew Hacker on obligatory algebra | Main | Enough to live on: Will Perkins on the minimum wage »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Sports journalism does have moments where it can be sexist. Men and women do get asked completely different questions based on the sport they play. They can ask Serena Williams if it was a bad game if she lost, but when it comes to Rodger Federer, they'd ask him what happened in the loss. Journalist will ask LeBron James more about basketball, but when it comes to anyone female in the WNBA they more ask bout home life, relationships off the court. With sports, males will be asked things more about sports, while women wont. that's a problem that need to be fixed.

Forrest W

In this article it seems like Sendhil Mullainathan is more focused on the complexities of the algorithm used to plot the questions that players are asked rather than the actual problem of sexism in post match conferences. While he does bring up the fact there is a problem with women being asked unrelated questions he devotes six paragraphs to talking about the algorithm. He even uses his closing paragraph to restate the importance of "the introduction to linear perspective."

natalia forcht

I believe that Mullainathan is using an example of sexism in order to demonstrate the value of algorithms in research. He used examples of questions men and women got asked, they were all gender biased. Women got asked about nails and shopping and men got asked questions about the tournament and their competitions. I don't understand why people tend to separate the views of athletes. they all play for the dedication in the sport and they should be asked the same questions because equal treatment is important in a society we live in now.


I think it would be funny and interesting to see what Micheal Phelps bought on his latest trip to the mall or what his skincare routine would be. I'm not a huge sports fan so maybe I'd be more interested in questions like those for both male and females. I guess if I were into sports I'd like to know the technique used behind both male and female thought process and routines when it comes to their sport.

Ryan Wallace

Sendill Mullainathen notes the instance where Serena Williams was asked why she wasn't smiling, but he does use many examples of systemic sexism in professional sports. Mullainathan states that of the tennis players that get asked questions unrelated to tennis, 70% of them are women and there is gender bias in professional sports.


Sendhil Mullainathan was more focused on the value and use of algorithms, and he demonstrated this through "sexism in sports." He wanted to show how algorithms can process language and he did this, with the help of researchers, by examining gender bias in tennis. He did this through interviews made with the players to compare questions, both related and unrelated to tennis, to extract those asked towards women from that of men. When the researchers applied the algorithm to the tournament, it was concluded that women were asked the most 'atypical', bizarre questions like "Do you know of players who get their nails done on-site?" compared to the men who were asked more related questions to tennis.


I totally agree with the author , the sexism in sport is truly present and the question related to it are proof of how different they see women's compared to men's in Sports. The author showed with supported algorithms that clearly this situation is currently happening in Professional sports. The author proved it by showing the type of question the journalist would ask men's compared to women. It shows that people take females in the industry less serious and less focus.


The main focus of the article written by Sendhil Mullainathan is on examples of research with algorithms, instead of examples of sexism in sports. If he chose to focus on sexism in sports, instead of introducing the research method in most parts of the article, he should've stuck to the study on sexism. It seems that the author is just using "the sexism in sports" to attract readers, which is pretty sad because this could have been a chance for the general public to discuss on the long-existing and disgusting gender bias in the society.


I recognize this is also a hot topic in the world of movies and theatre, because actresses often get asked questions about their outfits, rather than how they feel or what they have been given. This is a complicated topic because there are many designers who give elegant dresses to these actresses in the hopes that they will receive some advertising and recognition. While I find it entirely inappropriate for interviewers to ask if a woman is wearing underwear with a particular outfit, as has actually been asked to some of the biggest names in Hollywood, I see that there are some outfit-related questions that are acceptable in that environment. The same thing goes with sports, in my opinion. Some sort of middle ground needs to be reached and questions appropriate to the context should be the only ones asked.


Sendhil Mullainathan explores the idea of sexism in tennis and the difference between questions that women are asked and questions that men are asked. This idea sparked a debate where people started to tune into this difference and began to draw conclusions that women are asked more random questions then men. An example used was Serena Williams being asked why she does not smile more during a match. Mullainathan says that this question would never be asked to a man and explores the exact reason for this with algorithms. She talks about how algorithms are used to help narrow down words that do not pertain to tennis where there is a graph to show just how many random questions women were asked, versus how many on topic questions men were asked. I believe that this idea is true in more ways than just this one. In many different job settings women are asked random questions that have nothing to do with their job. A female lawyer is more likely to be asked about their outfit or their briefcase or how they look as a lawyer, but a man would more likely be asked about his case that he just solved or the next case they will solve. And I feel similar to this tennis situation, If there was an algorithm to prove this about lawyers the same results would be shown, because women have never been taken seriously. This issue needs to be addressed and we need to erase gender in conversation and ask questions solely about the work done.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

By signing up you agree to W. W. Norton’s
privacy policy and terms of use.

About They Say / I Blog

  • New readings posted monthly, on the same issues that are covered in “They Say / I Say” with Readings—and with a space where readers can comment, and join the conversation.

Follow us on Twitter to get updates about new posts and more! @NortonWrite

Become a Fan