Semenya back in the news; the debate continues

Thankfully it appears that South African runner Caster Semenya is not mired in depression or confusion over the recent questioning and testing of her gender and sex and biology.
Last weekend The Guardian ran a lengthy essay on what Semenya is up to these days: training. And included many photos of the athlete with her teammates and coaches. There was controversy over whether Semenya's conversations with the writer were on-the-record and if she knew that her talks with him would be included in the article. I have only glanced at the article myself so I cannot comment on its accuracy or fairness or sensitivity in covering all the attendant issues.
This week the IAAF ruled that Semenya could keep her medal and her prize money, but discussions are stil underway about whether she will be allowed to compete in the future. The IAAF has allegedly said they will not reveal the results of all the tests they conducted. (Not an especially reassuring statement given how information has been leaked throughout this investigation.)
As this news broke, Jill Geer, who does PR for USA Track and Field (that must be a stressful job!) wrote a blog post on USTAF's website about Caster Semenya. It was interesting. I was a little disturbed by the warning at the top of the post that read: Readers are advised that the following blog deals with issues of gender determination and sexual characteristics.
Not all that surprising that those in track and field and many outside of sport as well have such difficulty even comprehending these issues; they can't even talk about these things--even in a clinical way--without getting squeamish. Say it with me people: GEN-IT-AL-IA. See, that wasn't so hard. It's not as if some child was going to come across this blog post and get turned on by discussions of what kind of gentilia a South African runner has. And if it inspires questions by said child--good! And if you are the parent of said child and cannot answer these questions--email me!
But I digress, back to Geer's post. She displays a great deal of empathy for all involved, which is good. And she laments the way the whole situation was handled--also good. She clearly has an understanding of how gender norms are problematic. I was not too pleased that, right after she explained how she understood the limits of gender norms, she condemned Semenya's post-race bicep flex.
Geer cites my good friend Erin Buzuvis's paper delivered a couple of weeks ago at a conference on sport and law in Baltimore--but Geer doesn't agree with most of her points even as she lauds Buzuvis's attempt to present a "rational" argument about fairness in competition. Having read said paper myself and being one of those gender studies people Geer mentions briefly, I think that attempts at rationality are largely futile given that rationality itself is constructed through dominant ideas of gender, sex, power, science, etc. But I understand that people in governance and policy-making and law like to have rules.
And in the end my hope is that the situation with Semenya will alter not just the rules but our thinking on gender and sex.

h/t to NS for sending me Geer's blog

The ponytail epiphany

I hesitated to write this post because I did not want to be part of the continuing media coverage of the BYU/UNM soccer game in which rough play all around and particularly that of defender Elizabeth Lambert has gotten a lot of negative and other suspect attention.
But this article, not a big one in the grand scheme of media coverage, set me off and lead to the above mentioned ponytail epiphany. It's not what was in it, as it was not adding anything particularly new; it was the title: "On the Lambert scandal."
Scandal? It's a scandal now? Christian politicians living in communal environments in DC and sleeping with mistresses on the side engender scandals. Hiding information about alleged threats of terrorism from elected officials and the general public is a scandal.
A collegiate soccer player engaged in on-field acts of violent behavior is not a scandal.
So once again I was forced to ask myself, "What the heck is up with this story?" Seriously, when I was sitting in a Canadian bar two weeks ago and saw the infamous montage, I thought it would make a good post and get a little bit of press and thus engage a healthy discussion of gender and sport. Oh, the naivete.
But I have decided, just 'cause I can, that this was all about the ponytail. Lambert gave a good interview to NYT writer Jere Longman the other day and basically said that a lot of the stuff she got caught doing, was stuff that was happening throughout the game. She takes full responsibility for the actions, but notes that it all looks a little bit worse strung together like it was.
But it was the ponytail pull that really set things off. It clearly evoked girl-on-girl fighting that either titillated or terrified. This is my explanation as to why this story has gotten more play to that other women's sport moment of bad behavior this fall: Serena Williams at the US Open. And let's not forget to interrogate the racial aspects of this. Lambert is being read as white though she herself has never identified her race. White girls are supposed to play nice. The racism engendered by Williams's behavior in September was obviously problematic. But I wonder how much the stereotypes of black women as animalistic, uppity, angry contributed the quick demise (comparatively) of the story--while unfortunately reifying stereotypes of black womanhood that many already held. The expectations of white womanhood have gone unexamined in the case of Elizabeth Lambert but they are certainly there to be interrogated.

What have you done for women's basketball lately?

NCAA basketball has begun. Now admittedly basketball is a sport that I have never truly embraced. It is probably the American sport I know least about. But I follow the women's collegiate game out of a sense of loyalty to female athletes. And, of course, I find it interesting from a sociological and cultural studies perspective.
So here it is the first week of play and I am trying to jump in and be supportive right from the start this year. (This also serves a more solipsistic end: I know a little more when I fill out my bracket in March!) So last night, knowing the Tennessee/Texas Tech game was on, I kindly asked the bartender to put it on the big screen tv. And other people at the bar appeared to be watching. I was ready to have to fend of complaining whiners, but I didn't have to. Of course they may have changed the channel when I left at halftime but I did what I could.
And this morning on my very early drive to the gym I caught the score of the UConn game on my local NPR affiliate. The men's game.
Umm...didn't the women play last night as well? Well indeed they did. They crushed Texas I found after some internet searching.
So I am spending a little time this morning jotting off a letter to my station to say that if they truly believe we live in UConn country (which I find debatable but...) they should give all the UConn scores.

Not everyone is moving on

The IOC has stated that, in the wake of the Canadian appeal's court decision to uphold the lower court decision, it is pleased that it can now move on and focus on the forthcoming games.
Yes, it must be nice when a legal entity says it cannot hold you responsible for discrimination. The IOC sure knows how to spin things. I was a little surprised by this statement from the organization:
"As the lower court noted, the IOC has continued to demonstrate by its actions its support for women athletes and their participation in the Olympic Games."
Hmmm....I didn't read the lower court decision, but the message I got out of it from all the coverage was not that the IOC was a great supporter of women's sports, but that it was a great discriminator and the judge regretted that it was beyond her power to hold them accountable.

Final blow for female ski jumpers

The appeal, filed by a group of female ski jumpers attempting to get their sport into the Vancouver Games, was dismissed after two days of hearings in a Canadian court of appeals this week. The court agreed with the lower court ruling that it was the IOC that was at fault and the IOC can not be held to Canadian law. [I am not a legal scholar, and certainly not a Canadian legal scholar, but this decision would seem to set a bad precedent. They do have precedent in Canada right? I mean who knows what kind of outside entity can come in and shirk Canadian law.]

The lawsuit, according to VANOC, which seems a little resentful for being involved in this at all, cost the organization "six figures." First, if they were so resentful, they should have put more pressure on the IOC to do the right thing, to take responsibility, etc. But it seems the IOC gets to be immune to all these things. They must believe that because they are in Switzerland, they are neutral.
Second, how much exactly is six figures? Is this Canadian slang? Six figures could be $100,000 or $999,999. There's a big difference. Not that it matters. I don't have a lot of sympathy for VANOC anyway.

The Lambert wrap-up

I have to say that I, despite my deeply entrenched cynicism, am surprised at just how viral this whole Elizabeth Lambert thing went. It's everywhere I turn. I feel--and this is just a feeling not backed up at all by evidence--that this situation has gotten more attention than Serena Williams's outburst at the Open. I could be wrong. I haven't sat down to chart the You Tube hits or count the articles, editorials, or blog posts but there just seems to be something about this story that makes it keep going and going and going.
I don't think I have anything else to say about it myself but here's some of what others have been saying:

• From Christine Brennan, a column on how coaching factors into this situation. Coaching--or lack thereof--has been listed as one of the incredulities in this case. Brennan got the interview with Kit Vela, the UNM head coach who was questioned for her decision to keep Lambert on the field despite her actions. But Vela hadn't seen any of it, she told Brennan, until she saw the highlight reel that everyone else in American saw the night after the game. The arguably most egregious act--the ponytail pull--happened in the "run of play" Vela said and she missed. As did the referees we should note who certainly would have pointed it out. Vela insists that if she had seen it, Lambert would have been benched. Actually it seems both Vela and Lambert wished the ponytail pull had been noticed (it was well behind the play apparently) by refs who would have likely red-carded Lambert. I bet they do wish it! Probably would have at least tempered some of this fervent reaction.
• NYT sportswriter Jere Longman published a column Wednesday on the incident and got a lot of really smart and important people to talk about it ;) Julie Foudy, Mary Jo Kane, Pat Griffin, and others commented on issues of gender, violence, physicality/contact, comparisons to men's sports, etc.
• This columnist (reprinted in USA Today) provides a somewhat offensive level of sarcasm in his take on the whole thing. He actually incorporates the story of the high school soccer game in Rhode Island last weekend in which fighting on the field and in the stands commenced after a mid-field collision between two players. He also notes that "it's a proud day for Title IX." I am not pleased with all this invocation of Title IX in these discussions. I can think of a number of more appropriate organizations, moments, etc. to levy some blame on.
• Steve Krakauer at the blog Mediaite takes MSNBC's Dr. Nancy Snyderman (and her sports psychologist guest) to task for their sexist interpretation and comments on the situation. I found a problem with the sport psych guy calling this a "natural outgrowth" of the growth of women's sports. [italics mine] Snyderman also invoked Title IX as she suggested we needed to train girls to be just shy of the level of aggression men exhibit.
• And of course you should check out the Women Talk Sports network. Many of the contributing blogs have something to say about this!

Ski jumpers still fighting

In my ongoing effort to offer some support for the women (and men) who continue to fight for women's ski jumping in the Vancouver Olympics (less than 100 days away now) I direct you to this article from the Christian Science Monitor. It is quite thorough and lays out all the issues to date and going forward.