Thoughts on Michael Vick's return

So some of the news out of professional football this week is the return of Michael Vick to the NFL. Where exactly he will end up--and he will end up somewhere--is still unknown though word is he's getting close to signing with the Seattle Seahawks.
Vick's return to the NFL after serving nearly two years in federal prison for running a dogfighting ring comes with conditions.
Interesting, eh? As Dave Zirin says, it isn't likely that the NFL is a huge proponent of animal rights. They are all about appearances. And given the public outrage over this incident, the NFL is playing the PR game with the conditions and all the statements. And, of course, Vick is too, having met with the president of the Humane Society of America.
So the question over how the public will react to Vick's return lingers.
And it's all a little disturbing. Because, as Zirin also notes, the NFL is full of people who have done something wrong including domestic violence and sexual assault. Some have never done any time. Some have no conditions on their return--assuming they were ever kicked out. Granted what Vick did was wrong. But where is the outrage for players who beat up women? Are they meeting with the heads of domestic violence groups?
It seems that dogs are more sympathetic victims than humans. Maybe because a lot of people see dogs as defenseless and women as asking for it, for knowing what they are getting into when they get involved with a professional athlete. It is an attitude that we have seen repeatedly--in situations with Mike Tyson, with Kobe Bryant, and maybe now with Ben Roethlisberger.

Wednesday evening aggravations

So I was prepping for dinner, washing my first batch of local green beans when I heard myself say aloud "don't do it, Alex. Don't make me blog about you--again." But here I am blogging once again about Alex Trebek's general chauvinism and how it seems to appear in the context of sports. Because as Alex moved his way down the row of teenaged contestants to the only girl, he asked her to smile (first moment of my wariness), and notes how pretty her teeth are (that's two), and that they are all her own teeth before noting that the reason for this charade (my words, not his) is that young Audrey is a hockey player. She's a goalie though so she has a face mask, he says. (Of course all players have face masks now, Alex.) And then he calls her "a brave little girl." *sigh*

Thankfully my spirits were buoyed by the airing--live--of the Boston Breaker versus the Washington Freedom game. My two favorite teams!! Alas Breakers player Alex Scott got ejected within the first five minutes of the game for a cleats-up tackle. It wasn't Scott's ejection that dismayed me. It was that I had to listen, for the remainder of the game about how the Breakers were playing "a man down" and that Washington was not taking advantage of their "man advantage." grr...

Funny Kiwis!

Saw a funny editorial out of New Zealand a while ago and tucked it away thinking I should blog about it--then, of course, I forgot about it.

But it's too good not to share so please check out the Kiwi humor (or humour) about women's sports, homosexuality, and skirts. Apparently a team of netballers in New Zealand has been ordered out of their shorts and into short skirts.
The editorialist talks about Wimbledon's recent scheduling of the pretty people and Mary Jo Kane's research on how sex does not sell women's sports and the general fear of non-feminine women and its effect on women's sports. All in an incredibly sarcastic and witty way!

Obama on replay?

In a comment after my own snarky heart, sportswriter Tom Mahon of the Philadelphia Daily News notes that President Obama, in hosting the reigning WNBA champions, the Detroit Shock, basically gave the same speech about women's sports, and being a dad, yada, yada that he offered to the Connecticut Huskies, 2009 NCAA champions, last spring.
Really? You can't find something new to say about women's sports? I think he needs a new speechwriter; one that knows something about women's sports. So if anyone from the Obama administration is reading this just know that 1) we've noticed the lack of knowledge the president seems to have about women's sports (not including Title IX which he seems to have a handle on, thankfully) and 2) I am looking for a job. [I am also pretty good on women's issues generally and yes, I can tone down the sarcasm.]

What the news media can learn from sports media

There is a lot of bad stuff happening in the world today. Lest you think I only know about the bad stuff that happens in sport, I will let you know that I do have an awareness of national and international happenings. (And that I am equally jaded about them as what happens in sport most of the time.)
But really, some things I just don't want to know. And I want to be able to opt out of certain headlines and stories, like the current one about a Texas mother who killed her infant in an atrocious manner. This is something I certainly did not want to find out about by reading a headline on my aggregated Yahoo news stories.
When the Olympics or World Cup or other international sporting event has occurred but the event has yet to air in the US, reporters often say something like "put your TV on mute now if you don't want to know the results." I think the same standard should apply to other news happenings.

The latest in sport and sexual harassment

Remember last year when sideline reporter Erin Andrews of ESPN was approached from behind by a collegiate football player who simulated a sexual maneuver as he was leaving the field? Well if you don't check it out here, along with my take on that situation and Andrews generally.
At that time, I noted that many people got angry at the people who spoke out against the harassment and that Andrews pretty much laughed it off in that awkward way one laughs off sexual harassment when you can't make a big deal out of it because, well, you're a woman in sports and you like your job. But I kind of knew this would not be the end of it. And I hate to say "I told you so" but...
A video of Andrews naked in a hotel room has appeared on the internet. An as-yet-unknown peeper took the video through a peep hole he/she drilled through a wall or door.
In no way am I saying the Andrews asked for it. But this is not surprising given that she has failed to speak up against the overt sexualization of her. It is possible that even if she had spoken out, the peeper still would have proceeded to film her. But it's too bad that this is the tipping point--a very extreme tipping point. Because no one is saying, as they did in the football player situation, that this is just funny or playful. But media outlets cover it by showing stills or blurred out portions of the video in their coverage of an event that they admit is an outrageous violation of privacy. Curious, eh?
No one can completely control their own image. Especially a woman, especially a woman in sports. I think this situation illustrates, though, that women like Andrews need to put more pressure on the media and the general public to respect her job skills and not just her looks.

And in a very generalized but interesting example of Canadian news media and American news media we have this article from the National Post and this one from the Washington Examiner. The latter talks very little about the event or the sexualization of Andrews but rather the double standard women who have never played a sport face in getting into broadcasting that sport (versus men who get broadcasting jobs without playing experience). The Canadian paper talks about the sexualization of women generally but how this event has everything to do with Andrews being a woman in sport. So nice to have a mainstream outlet make that point--so I don't have to! It also reminds us the Lisa Olson incident, which occurred over 20 years ago! Seems that the only thing that has changed is the technology.

Girls: practice your bunts, throws, and make-up application

Every time I hear about saving softball, people invoke young girls. We're doing it for all those girls in the stands, commentator Michelle Smith says. I am so sick of this rationale. Why do women's sports have to invoke the future of girlhood as a primary reason for saving the sport? I agree that it is part of the larger argument. But it is almost always proffered as the sole reason--at least during broadcasts of softball games. I haven't completely dissected the rhetoric yet and this is not the reason behind this post, so moving on...
Since these girls in the stands are the future of softball and Smith likes to talk about the skills necessary for youth players to develop if they want to play collegiate and eventually international ball, I think I should add that in addition to 1) becoming a leftie (seriously--lefties are ubiquitous on team USA); 2) learning to sneaky bunt or slap; 3) and making it to first in less than 5 seconds young girls are going to have to learn the art of eyeliner application.
Because it's not enough these days to sport the sparkly headband (unless you're pitcher Cat Osterman wearing sponsor Under Armour's spandex-y red one along with your Nike uniform!). You have to wear eyeliner. Black eyeliner. Every player I saw last night in the game against Japan had it on. Different amounts. But it was there. There's nothing wrong with eyeliner. I really liked the way a former Cal pitcher wore intense make-up on the days she was pitching. It had this goth/intimidation effect that I read as a little queer; a little counter culture.
But this display of eyeliner seems more compulsory. Softball just works way too hard to maintain some kind of hetero feminine image--including the preponderance of male head coaches. The very successful Japanese team wasn't sporting make-up. They also have a female head coach who, whether she is gay or not, certainly is not the picture of (western) uber-femininity. Seems to work ok for them

Dear ESPN,

Next March when you issue your press release during Women's History Month about how much coverage you provide of women's sports, I hope you don't count the softball game you are airing right now in your list of accomplishments.
Because when I saw that women's softball was airing during prime time on a Thursday, I was pretty psyched. But the World Cup final you are showing is from LAST YEAR. Last year!
And that "previously recorded" you have in the upper right corner of the screen is a little bit misleading. Previously recorded shouldn't really apply to LAST YEAR. Isn't that what ESPN Classic is for? Previously recorded is for a game that was played this afternoon or even earlier in the week. Don't make me come down to CT and explain it to you.
Sincerely (pissed off),
ken

UPDATE: Ok, so it turns out ESPN did end up airing the USA v. Netherlands game a little after 9pm EST. There was a power outage in Oklahoma. So I take back the harsh tone. Still it would have been nice to see that program alert at the start of the broadcast rather than 45 minutes into it. Also, I have to say that I would not have flown off the proverbial handle if ESPN had a better track record.

American wrestlers claiming unequal treatment

The women who train under USA Wrestling have filed a grievance claiming they are receiving inferior treatment.
Some of the top female wrestlers in USA Wrestling's program say discrimination exists at multiple levels and includes: less qualified coaching, more harsh punishments (including being publicly demeaned by coaches), and differences in monetary compensation.
USA Wrestling executives will get first crack at addressing the claims. If they do not do so in a "reasonable time" or not to the satisfaction of the women, the grievance will be sent to the United States Olympic Committee.

Pro athletes are already out

I'm not going to go into my "I really do like Dave Zirin, but sometimes..." intro here because, well, that pretty much captures it.
A recent Zirin column asks "Which pro athlete will come out of the closet?"
It's a curious question because, of course, there are already out professional athletes. Athletes who came out or have come out during the course of their professional careers. There's Billie Jean King (forced out but still) who Zirin invokes in his article as a pioneer for women's rights. She was an out athlete. As was Martina Navritilova. As is Amelie Mauresmo. As is Lisa Raymond. But these are all tennis players, you say. Well, ok so: Vicky Galindo (who plays professionally for the Chiacgo Bandits), Rosie Jones, Sheryl Swoopes, Lauren Lappin, Latasha Byears.
But they are all women, you say. Well yes, they are gay women. (Galindo identifies as bisexual.) Gay is not a gender-specific term. The gay liberation movement means gay men and women so when Zirin says we are waiting for a "gay professional athlete" this also means man or woman. When he says this athlete must have courage and will likely suffer for coming out he discounts the courage and the suffering of the athletes who have already come out. What he seems to mean is that we (society) need a male athlete in a sport like football or baseball or basketball to come out. But that's not what he says. And his implication is damaging. It continues the invisibility of female athletes and quite possibly the assumption that female athletes are, by default, gay; and/or that it is somehow easier for a female athlete to come out. Perhaps this belief is based on the fact that women's sports are not as popular or lucrative. Navratilova, who lost lots of endorsements when she came out, might disagree.
And, by the way, Rudy Galindo, a gay male athlete, was out when he was skating professionally. Does figure skating not count as a real sport? Or does Galindo not count as a real man? I guess the athlete Zirin is picturing is one of those butch guys who can pass, who has probably cavorted with a variety of women in an attempt to cover his identity (that's my own stereotyping, of course!).

I think Zirin is right on when he says, essentially, that the sports world is a laboratory for issues of civil rights and social acceptance. And as his piece--a small piece of that laboratory--shows us, we still have a lot of entrenched sexism in our society.

In the LPGA too

The LPGA worked fast and appointed Marsha Evans temporary commissioner of the oldest women's sport organization. Evans is a former CEO of the American Red Cross and a Navy Admiral.
Of course Evans has a past. She was forced out of the Red Cross in 2005 after contentious relations with her board. (So were her two predecessors, though--both women--one of whom was Elizabeth Dole.) Apparently they board of governors did not like her "command-and-control" management style.
Wonder how that will go over on the LPGA...
Meanwhile, a search committee has been formed and one member assures us that the new permanent commissioner will have a background in sport management. (Bivens did not.) Annika Sorenstam has stepped up to become an advisor to the LPGA board in the time of transition.
And right now the three names being floated for Bivens's permanent replacement are (drum roll, please): Donna Orender (current head of the WNBA); Cindy Davis (current head of Nike Golf); and in-house candidate Zayra Calderon who is CEO of the Futures Tour and was just promoted to Executive Vice President, Tournament Development & Worldwide Sales.

More changes in leadership

The Women's Tennis Association has found a new CEO. It is a familiar face: current president Stacy Allaster.
I know very (very) little about the leadership of the WTA except that I was not a huge fan of Larry Scott who announced his leave from the position in March and is now head of the PAC-10. So Allaster has a blank slate as far as I am concerned. We shall see...

No surprises post-US Open

It was somewhat surprising how few under par rounds there were at this year's US Open; and that Christie Kerr feel apart on Sunday; and the way Eun He Ji calmed her nerves and pulled off that amazing birdie putt at 18 to win her first major.
Not surprising was Paula Creamer bright pink Sunday outfit (is this going to be a permanent thing??) and the "resignation" of LPGA commish Carolyn Bivens. Bivens's ouster has been in the works and when a group of prominent players signed a letter after the Jamie Farr Owens Corning Classic (the last one ever because of funding/sponsor issues) a few weeks ago asking for her resignation, her fate was pretty much sealed. The LPGA will have to pony up $1 million to buy out her contract, however, which runs through 2010. In the meanwhile, the LPGA is seeking a temporary commissioner while it searches for a suitable "permanent" (because, really, what job in sport has any kind of permanence these days?) replacement.
So here's the thing. I am not a huge fan of Bivens but basically for only one reason: her inane language policy (everyone's gotta speak English--soon) that got implemented and then revoked when it came under heavy criticism from outside the golf world.
But the criticism from players and others (inside and out) is that she is taking a hard line with sponsors who want to play fewer of the costs for putting on a tournament. And so they back out.
I don't envy Bivens her job right now and thus am not surprised that she was pretty willing to get bought out of her contract.
Yes, the economy sucks. But the PGA doesn't seem to be having too many troubles; or the NBA or even the MLB for that matter. At least not troubles that have people saying "What will be the future of the ___?" Bivens is only asking sponsors to support the LPGA in the way they support other sports. And sponsors have balked at that notion.
Support women's sports in the same way? Quel horreur! No, no, Carolyn Bivens and all you lady golfers; we are going to give you what we want to, and you are going to be grateful for it. And you are going to send your prettiest golfers out to play rounds with all our male execs prior to the tournaments. And they will make nice, and you will make nice--and then you will have to find a way to foot the bill for everything else.
Suzann Petterson said “Maybe we’ve been playing too tough and kind of cutting too many out instead of dropping down on the price and making everybody happy.”
Except you're not making everybody happy. Someone has to cover those costs when sponsors commit to less. What gets cut? Prize money? Female golfers already make so much less than their male counterparts. This is not a league, like the WPS for example, that is new and playing it conservatively and asking everyone to ride out the tough years. The LPGA has been around forever. That it is experiencing these kinds of problems reflects not just the economy or the leadership, but also our society.

"Distasteful" but not illegal...

...at least in Canada. The quest of the female ski jumpers who filed a lawsuit against the Vancouver Olympic Committee saying that their exclusion was illegal under Canadian civil rights laws has come to an end it seems. The judge in the case dismissed the lawsuit saying that allow it was discrimination and it was indeed "distasteful" that there was really nothing VANOC could do about it because the decision comes from the International Olympic Committee. Judge Lauri Fenlon ruled, not surprisingly, that the Canadian courts were not the place for the lawsuit because the IOC was a "non-party." It's too bad because the IOC will be having a big party in February and the female ski jumpers will not be allowed to attend.

Gender cheating

If you look at the accumulation of comments on Soccer Lens' "The 15 Greatest Sports Cheats of All Time" you would think the biggest controversy is whether Maradona's "hand of god" goal in the 1980s was worse than boxing coach Panana Lewis's tactics that lead to the loss of vision in a fighter Billy Collins, Jr. and, indirectly, his death. Or why Marion Jones was left off the list.
Of course I think the biggest controversy was the inclusion of Stella Walsh. Walsh was a track & field athlete from Poland who, it was discovered after her death, to be intersex. She had a set of XX and XY chromosomes. So according to the people at Soccer Lens, Walsh was a cheat. This is despite the fact that she passed--passed!--the gender verification test which consisted of a physical examination of her genitals. There was suspicion throughout her career, the writers say, that Walsh was a man.
Except, that she wasn't a man. She was clearly raised and lived as a woman--a woman who had what some would call atypical sex chromosomes for a woman. But the writers assume a few problematic things.
One, that Walsh was aware of her condition and purposely duped people. This is highly unlikely. After all, Walsh did pass her gender verification test in 1936. Why would she think her genitals were any different from other women's? I know there is a lot of comparing going on among the men folk and I have to say, not so much among women. In general, and especially in Stella Walsh's day, there wasn't a whole lot of encouragement given to women to actually learn how their bodies looked and worked. Remember, she was pre-hand mirror/consciousness-raising.
And two, many many female athletes are accused of being men. That Walsh--a successful female athlete--suffered those accusations says nothing about her intersex status. It is a tactic that is still employed today.
In short, Walsh was not a cheat. That she was even included on this list is outrageous. But it was actually not that surprising to me when I read about another "gender cheat" that the Soccer Lens people included: Dora Ratjen. Ratjen competed for Germany in the 1936 Olympics. Ratjen was a high jumper. She was also a he. Ratjen is the only documented case in the history of the modern Olympics of a man masquerading as a woman. And he did so because he was compelled to so by the Nazi regime. Is it a case of cheating--yes. Later in his life, Ratjen admitted his deceit. So, yes, it was a case of cheating. But "Hitler made me do it" is one of the best excuses I have ever heard. Is what Ratjen--who didn't even medal in the 36 Games--did worse than some of the other cheaters from the past and present. (Ahem--Manny Ramirez anyone?)
In other words, these writers seem to have some issues with gender ambiguity. And they vilify the non-conformers while failing to recognize how these situations are either 1) not actual cheating or 2) not nearly as egregious as other cheating scandals. Because maintenance of proper gender roles is clearly of utmost importance to many people--especially when we are talking about sports. And a woman's conformity is always already called into question when she enters the world of sport. Some have a need for very clear, unbreachable boundaries based on sex/gender when it comes to sport.

Serena has the last word

Everyone, it seems, has weighed in on the Centre Court sexism.
But Wimbledon winner, 11-time Grand Slam singles champion, Serena Williams definitely got the last word (even if Dave Zirin wrote his column after Serena's win). Her shirt at the post-match press conference said it all. "Are you looking at my titles?" (You can see a pic of her wearing it at One Sport Voice.)
It's appropriate given the attention women's bodies received this Wimbledon fortnight--not for their athletic ability but for their aesthetics. And especially appropriate for Serena Williams whose body is often the focus of attention [too muscular, too fat, too slow, too fragile (i.e. injury prone)]. This Wimbledon was the same for Serena. A columnist felt the need to talk about her butt--which he so cleverly (note the sarcasm) termed her "backpack." Jason Whitlock, writing for Fox Sports (which explains a lot) is overtly offensive in his treatment of the younger Williams. Example:
Seriously, how else can Serena fill out her size 16 shorts without grazing at her stall between matches?
He is referring to Serena's complaints about Wimbledon's new no food in the locker rooms rule (which was indeed silly).
I don't think African-American writers, of which Whitlock is one, should he held to a higher standards regarding race. But he should be aware, as should everyone, of the problematic connections between African-American athletes and animals. His comments were disgusting and he completely failed to note throughout his column how race plays into how Serena, and her sister Venus, are received and treated in the tennis world--and beyond. He believes that people don't want to see women equal to men in the world of sports (in terms of fame), and could be true but more immediate and relevant is that "people" don't want to see a black woman at the top of the tennis world.
Whitlock was clearly going for a reaction and this is obvious in his complete contradiction: he calls Serena sexy when she is in shape, talks about black women's booties and his enjoyment of them, but chastises Serena for not being a better athlete, for being more dedicated to her sport and her training. It's really difficult to argue that the woman who holds the most Grand Slam singles titles currently on the tour is a sub-par athlete. Because she does not meet everyone's aesthetics though, she is constantly called to task for her athletic abilities, or is it her looks? Or can we even tell the difference anymore?

Bad band!

So this one time, in band camp...we learned naughty things to say to other teams during basketball games.
And now Texas Christian University is in trouble. For the bad band's actions during the first round of the 2009 women's national tournament, the NCAA Women's Basketball Committee has reprimanded the university:
The committee determined that members of the Texas Christian band made disparaging and inappropriate comments to both the game officials and student-athletes of a participating team during the first- and second-round games in Lubbock, Texas.
No word on what the exact behavior was or the extent of the reprimand. I saw the TCU pep band a few years ago at the Hartford regional and nothing seemed amiss.
I guess the band isn't allowed to trash talk the way the athletes are. Maybe band should be a sport, too. Some of the players certainly seem to have the attitude thing down.

This week's play on words*: Part II--The Women of Wimbledon

Various bloggers over at Women Talk Sports have already mentioned this issue, so--having been scooped--I'm simply adding to the discourse.

In a one step forward, two steps forward kind of way, Wimbledon has stopped putting Miss (or Mrs.) on the scoreboard. (Though the umpires still use the honorifics during matches.) But in a move that is so very high school, the Wimbledon powers-that-be have decided to schedule women's matches on the show courts based on looks. And everyone has noticed--even ESPN where columnist LZ Granderson writes:
Doing so [selling sex] might hurt some of the players' feelings, but it's not undermining the integrity of the sport. Court assignments don't affect the outcome of the match or tournament.
Well sometimes court assignments do affect outcomes--I mean there is a reason court 2 (the former court 2 anyway) at Wimbledon was called "the graveyard of champions." OK so that's mostly superstition but don't think that tennis does not have certain home-court advantage aspects.
More importantly, though, it does affect the integrity of the sport. One would think that tennis, Wimbledon especially, would be attempting to rectify its sexist, homophobic, and racist ways. But no. That both Williams sisters got sent to court 2 (the new one) along with French Open finalist Svetlana Kuznetsova while younger, blonder, whiter, more heteronormative players got to play Centre and Court 1 is indicative of the multiple and intersecting discriminations that still go largely unchecked.

This article notes, interestingly, that the "babe factor" is not necessarily a recent phenomenon. Citing Frenchwoman Suzanne Lenglen, the author reports (citing Susan Cahn) that Lenglen effectively combined athleticism and eroticism. Of course she also had 6 French Open and 6 Wimbledon titles.
Of course tomorrow the Williams sisters will be on Centre Court playing one another. Because even though the pretty girls got their moments on the show courts last week--they all got sent home this week.

* Oh yeah. The play on words: "No doubt about it, [the young, pretty White girls'] looks and not their talent have won them prime playing time on Wimbledon's best piece of grass." Yep. Yesterday's was better.

This week's plays on words: Part I

Addressing the issue of cheerleading as sport, Inside Higher Ed this week published an article on the controversy entitled "But I'm an Athlete."
It's a good piece but I giggled a little when I read the title and wondered how many Inside Higher Ed readers picked up on what--I'm assuming--is the play on that cheerleading/gay rehab satirical film But I'm a Cheerleader. If you haven't seen it--do. It's not really about cheerleading but about a camp to reform young homosexuals. The lead character gets sent there after an intervention during which her family and friends accuse her of being a lesbian. Her defense? "But I'm a cheerleader."
The implication being that a cheerleader cannot be gay. And the suggestion/question of the IHE article: an athlete cannot be a cheerleader. There are probably a lot of things going on here. But this is what I take from it. Despite the athleticism involved in cheerleading these days, its status as a sport and its participants as athletes remains controversial. What is interesting is that part of the unconferred status stems from the view that cheerleading is a feminine endeavor. In the beginning only men were cheerleaders but that changed so dramatically that few people even remember those days of yore. And women as cheerleaders jibes with the notion of women in support roles. So that makes it seem more feminine. Plus there are the costumes, the attractiveness factor, the music, etc. In some ways the legitimacy issue is the same one faced by figure skating--which has been deemed a sport but is often seen as a lesser sport.
So the cheerleading as sport issue remains unresolved even as more and more schools are elevating cheerleading to varsity sport status. (More on this controversy at the Title IX Blog.)

The bra is back!

When the Sports Museum of America went bankrupt and failed to find a buyer, the donated memorabilia became contested property. One of the most notable donations was from Brandi Chastain--the sports bra she revealed (that created far too much controversy, I thought) after scoring the winning penalty kick in the 1999 World Cup gold medal match. At one time it appeared Chastain, and other donors, were going to have to pay $250 (plus shipping, of course!)for their items. But Chastain's lawyer did some wrangling and the bra is back with its original owner after spending some time--we think--in a NJ storage facility. Initially Chastain did not appear too concerned about her bra and there was talk about it going to the Soccer hall of Fame. But it is, after all, the 10th anniversary of that victory. And so the bra will be back on display this weekend at FC Gold Pride's (Chastain's current team) match against St Louis Athletica. No word on what it's next stop will be.