Cinderellas and Handsome Princes

The other day as I was reading a post over on sports babel about Cinderella stories in sport. Of course I had heard the fairy tale reference applied to sport before--most recently the movie Cinderella Man--but I hadn't really pondered the reference until now. (Why now--who knows.) Admittedly I have not gone searching out the etymology of the phrase. Maybe I will later but right now--untainted by actualy research--I am curious as to how such a very feminine reference came to be used favorably in men's sports. Usually anything feminine is used in a disparaging way in men's sports (and some of this has carried over to women's sports now too--yeah progress?!) For example, I frequently hear and hear about coaches calling players "girls" or "sissies" and other misogynist and homophobic lovelies. So has Cinderella been so well-received or at least never questioned? Like I said, I don't the answer because I don't know the history of how it came into being. (Though my guess is some commentator at some point used it and it stuck.)
This all lead me to wonder how this applies to women's sports. We still use the term--I assume though I can't recall a specific moment when I heard it--to speak of women's teams. I am sure it will get thrown around as March Madness begins this weekend. What does it mean to take such a gendered term that has been used (uncritically?) in men's sports and apply it women's sports. I am saying that it is wrong. I am just wondering what the implications are for this application. Usually it seems like despite the many similarities we like to keep men's and women's sports separate using various strategies (like calling female teams the Lady ____ or the ____ettes) but I haven't ever heard female come from behind teams called the Handsome Princes. I watched last year's tournament where the Liberty made a good run and no one ever said "Wow--what a handsome prince story this is." I wonder what Liberty founder Jerry Falwell would have thought of that!

Comments

Anonymous said…
I don't think Handsome Prince is an apt analogy. A Handsome Prince is supposed to come out on top. A team that pulls off a few upsets(Liberty in 2005) is not. Rather, a low-seeded team is like a scullery maid who's not even supposed to be "at the dance" at all, let alone walking away with the grand prize.

Perhaps we should be pondering why there is no apt male analogy to the Cinderella concept.

I agree, though, that it is interesting why a concept that is so otherwise detached from the cultural mythology of men (never a Cinderella, always a Prince) is coopted so regularly in the masculine enterprise of sport.
March 16, 2006 2:26 PM
Anonymous said…
Great question, Ken. For that matter, I will add that the media (CBS) usually refers to "the dance" when discussing the men's hoops tournament. Also, the quarterfinal round is known as the "Sweet Sixteen", a term that comes from a young girl's 16th birthday and her emergence into womanhood.

There are apt male analogies to the Cinderella concept -- "Rudy" immediately comes to mind -- yet she persists.
March 20, 2006 1:13 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why trans athletes?

In a continuation of my last post in which I crib from GLAD lawyer Jennifer Levi's thoughtful social media posts, I offer here an explanation of why and how trans athletes became the target of the right. First, I keep seeing left of center posts/headlines/discourse that highlight how few trans girls/women are competing in sports. I don't love this framing. The underlying premise of inclusion and access does not have a tipping point.  Perhaps what it is meant to show is how the right is weaponizing this issue. This is both reasonable and true but not really very profound in its assessment. Look at some of the groups and people doing the work of banning trans athletes and you will also see agendas which are racist, and anti-Semitic, and Islamophobic, and anti-LGB as well.  If I have not already recommended Judith Butler's Who's Afraid of Gender? (though I am pretty sure I have), go read it. Some of what Butler says is what Levi echoed in a recent posting contemplating the...
Read more

The trans athlete ban: Part 3a: NCAA hypocrisy

 [this is cross-posted with Title IX Blog where I will also post something about the announcement that NIL is not subject to Title IX] The NCAA's new policy banning transwomen from competing in women's sports arrived (seemingly) minutes after the administration issued its executive order banning transwomen and girls from participating in school-sponsored sports teams.  The NCAA did include verbiage though which is worth looking at.  This is the synopsis at the top of the press release:  Men's category open to all eligible student-athletes, women's category restricted to student-athletes assigned female at birth, schools directed to foster welcoming environments on all campuses. But it is not accurate.  The women's category--for competition purposes--is open to people students assigned female at birth who are not taking testosterone. What we see here is a different standard. Testosterone levels matter only for some people. Taking it knocks you out of the women's...
Read more

The trans athlete ban, Part II: Capitulation

 The same day as the president signed the executive order banning transwomen in school-sponsored sports (which WILL have more widespread effects--i.e., recreational sports for youth and adults), the NCAA issued its own change on transwomen in collegiate sports which, for the purpose of "consistency" will also prohibit transwomen from competing in women's NCAA sports.  [I wrote about the effects the EO will have on Title IX compliance which is something that NCAA purports to care about, at Title IX Blog .] I would have been surprised (in a good way), if they had not. They give in to outside pressure regularly (with positive and negatives effects). But this policy is another example of their failure to protect athletes. [Lack of penalties for schools that shield predatory coaches and doctors as well as athletes who commit sexual assault; their exploitation of Black men who help them make their billions every March; their laughable adherence to an ahistorical definition of ...
Read more