At the most basic level, Williams is right. Williams' actions at the U.S. Open are indefensible, but the reaction to her actions WOULD be different if they had come from a man. Consider the post tennis career of John McEnroe - the most consistently poorly behaved athlete of all time. He is the most recognized tennis analyst working. Believe me, that will not be Serena Williams' future. And it is not due to McEnroe's great insights. His work is obvious, boring and banal. Now the difference is not JUST because McEnroe is a man and Williams is a woman. But it is part of it. A big part of it.

The problem is Williams is using this legitimate point to defend her indefensible actions. She is unrepentant. She think she did nothing wrong. And there is the problem:

"I just think the whole incident (at the Open),'' she said, "was a learning experience.'' No, she's not talking about the same thing I am. In Williams' reality, what she learned is that it's a man's world. She said her punishment, a fine, for threatening to shove a ball down the line judge's throat was a double-standard, harsh because she's a woman. [. . .] In Williams' reality, she was the victim. And she wrote about it on her website, giving examples of other players getting lesser fines in history, calling them HE or HIM in all-capital letters to make the point.

A legitimate grievance is championed by a person whose actions were indefensible. This is neither good for women nor Serena Williams. For the sake of both, I hope she drops this line.

Speaking for me only