feminist blogs

The capital of the United States has seen a lot of changes lately, and I can’t describe them better than the Washington Post’s Petula Dvorak has: We saw our first African American president move into the White House last year; same-sex couples were finally able to legally marry in D.C. last week; and today we might [...]

by Pam Spaulding

Is it me or has the world gotten even more hyperparanoid and confused about sexual orientation and gender expression? In what is both an absurd and incomprehensible decision, GLAAD reports that Stars on Ice sponsors are so concerned about the flamboyance of Olympic ice skater Johnny Weir (or is it his costumes?), that they don’t want him on the tour.

When was the last time male figure skaters and BUTCH coexisted in your mind? Why does it matter anyway? Are Dick and Jane going to be gender confused after a 90-minute ice show? I think these people have lost their minds.

GLAAD has learned from a source that wishes to remain anonymous that sponsors of the Stars on Ice Tour, which include Smuckers and IMG Entertainment, have refused to allow 3-time US National Champion and 2-time Olympian Johnny Weir to participate because they claim that he is “not family friendly.”

To say that Weir is “not family friendly” would be a clear jab at his perceived sexual orientation. Weir is extremely involved with his family. He is putting his younger brother through college, and supports the family financially because his father’s disability prohibits him from working. Weir’s dedication to his family can be clearly documented in the Sundance series, Be Good Johnny Weir, which follows him and his family and friends through his life and career as a championship skater.

Weir’s performance and costume style is sometimes considered flashier than those of other skaters, leading to questions about his perceived sexual orientation. While Weir has not officially announced his sexual orientation, he has garnered a significant amount of LGBT fans. He remains one of the most outspoken skaters today, and won an online poll asking fans “Who would you like to see guest star on Stars on Ice?”

Well that last point shows that the only paranoia exists in the minds of the sponsors. I’m not sure which aspect of Weir set off these alarms—is it the ornate and creative costumes? Over the years, the costumes of male figure skaters have become more free and flamboyant, regardless of the athlete’s real or perceived sexual orientation.

For instance I remember when the incredibly talented Rudy Galindo, the 1987 World Junior Champion and the 1996 U.S. National Champion—and was one of the first figure skaters that I recall coming out of the closet. Take a look at him from this short program at the ‘96 Worlds. I remember his flamboyance and oh-so-gey velvet costume were considered radical.

Now how tame was that? That costume (or his known homosexuality at the time) didn’t stop Galindo from continuing to compete, and to go on to a professional skating career, including a 10-year stint with the Tom Collins’ Champions on Ice show.

Now look at Johnny Weir’s short program at the NHK Trophy last year.

All I’m saying is that it’s all relative, and with a broader acceptance and comfort with self-expression along the gender norm lines within the sport, these sponsors and Stars on Ice need to get a flipping grip.

According to a national high school coaches directory, last season there were 15,675 high school football coaches (public and private) and all of them were males.  That is about to change.  On Friday, Natalie Randolph will be named the head football coach at Coolidge High School in Washington, DC.  This is great news!

Randolph has good credentials.  She graduated from the University of Virginia, played five seasons as a wide receiver for the D.C. Divas in the women’s professional league, and spent two years as an assistant football coach at D.C.’s H.D. Woodson High School.

Many consider football the most “macho” U.S. sport and, therefore, there will undoubtedly be much derision (and many many jokes) about Randolph’s hiring.  As one (anonymous) coach said about her hiring, “All I know is, I don’t want to be the first one to lose to her. That’s going to be wild.” Yes, football coaches have very fragile egos.  (And, by the way, I would imagine that rugby players might consider their sport more “macho” than football.  And, so, it was big news when a star professional player announced in December that he was gay and, apparently, most of his peers didn’t think it was a big deal.)

This is not the first time that the D.C. public school system has hired a woman as a head football coach.  In 1985, Wanda Oates was named head football coach at Ballou High School. She lasted one day in the position, before opposing coaches pressured the deputy schools superintendent to remove her from the job because they didn’t want to coach against a woman.  Oates still teaches in the school system and is happy for Randolph.  When told that Randolph had been hired at Coolidge, Oates smiled and shook her head that it took 25 years for the next woman to take this step.  She said, “It’s a tremendous opportunity for that young lady,  Football is the macho of all macho sports, and once we break that glass ceiling, there’s no limit to what we can accomplish.”

Randolph will have a lot of battles to fight in addition to getting her team ready for its games.  The comments from the misogynist “macho” football fans will be unrelenting.  For example, here are some of the comments to the Washington Post article:

Having a female football coach is like having a male lamaze coach… Neither know enough to be effective.

Some of these kids see HS sports as a way out the slime to college. What college scout in their right mind would ever recommend to take a kid from this program.

That ain’t right.

The boys on this team will be so embarrased they will not want to paly for her.  There’s absolutely no way anyone can tell me the school could not have found a man who was better qualified for that position.  Football is one of the few areas where young men in need of strong postive male role models can be found. They don’t need a woman usurping this area of authority because it will only backfire.  I’m not hating but it seems to me like all the hoopla is more about this woman and not about what is best for those boys she will be trying to lead.  This will be an abysmal failure and I feel sorry that those boys will be subjected to such a stupid experiment.

This is a gimmick.  The boys on this team will be so embarrased they will not want to paly for her.  There’s absolutely no way anyone can tell me the school could not have found a man who was better qualified for that position.

I applaud the school for hiring Randolph and hope for the best for her.  Once the school is winning, of course, the criticism from other coaches and the macho football fans will ease.  But it usually takes time for any coach to put together a winning team.  And many coaches never have a winning team.  Coolidge High School will have to continue to support her through thick and thin.

Reader Clifford McC. and his (female) partner both receive Bicycling magazine (which, he explains, is more of a free advertisement that they get whether they want to or not).  In any case, this month’s issue was the 2010 Buyer’s Guide and, though the issues each received were identical, the one addressed to his partner was stickered:

The sticker read, “BONUS! SPECIAL WOMEN’S SECTION.”

Perhaps they were trying to be inclusive, but a sticker advertising a special women’s section just goes to show that the magazine is, first-and-foremost, for men.

For the same phenomenon elsewhere, see our posts featuring websites selling dinosaur toys and Legos (see “exhibit three”), each with a special section for girls.

(View original at http://contexts.org/socimages)

Tennille N. sent in this Australian commercial for NutriGrain cereal:

Transcription:

Boys need protein for growth and muscle development.
NutriGrain is one of the highest protein cereals, so as part of a balanced diet and regular exercise, NutriGrain has what it takes to help build your son into an Ironman.
Thanks Mum.
NutriGrain, Ironman food.

As Tennille noted, I guess she doesn’t need NutriGrain, since she’s a girl and, accordingly, does not need muscles, nor athletic aspirations.

(View original at http://contexts.org/socimages)

This week, Sports Illustrated ran an article about sexism in Olympic sports, using the example of ski jumper Lindsey Van, whose sport, despite her best efforts, is not yet allowed in the Olympics. At least, not for women. This year, men's ski jumping was an Olympic event, but women's ski jumping is yet to be recognized by the International Olympic Committee, and like Van, the author of the story believes that its exclusion is a result of sexism on the part of the IOC.

Van is the 2009 women's world champion in the sport, and as Rachel Maddow has noted in her coverage of this issue, she holds the world record - not just the women's record, but the world record -in one of the events. In fact, as Maddow pointed out, Van set that world record on the very hill that was used for the Olympic competition in Vancouver last week.

Both Maddow and Phil Taylor, the author of the SI article, suspect that sexism is at play in the decision not to make women's ski-jumping an Olympic sport, and it's hard not to agree with that assessment when members of the International Ski Federation say things like, "Don't forget, it's like jumping down from, let's say, about two meters on the ground about a thousand times a year, which seems not to be appropriate for ladies from a medical point of view." Two meters? That's 78.7401inches! A thousand times a year? My ovaries are running away in fright at the very thought!

The Canadian courts sided with Van and the other jumpers who filed a suit against the Vancouver Organizing Committee, but as Community blogger Honeybee noted earlier, the Canadian courts don't have the authority to order the IOC to change their decision.

Sadly, the situation with women's ski-jumping is just one example of sexism at work in women's sport. Taylor puts it beautifully in the SI article:

"Sexism isn't confined to any sport or country. It's a universal language, spoken not so much with words as with action, or the lack of it. Female hockey players from many of the European countries competing in the Olympics, for instance, have seen their national federations' lopsided spending on the men's programs as a loud and clear message that they are considered mere afterthoughts. In Russia, where hockey is the national pastime, the women couldn't begin practicing until three weeks before the Games because of budget constraints."

And of course, it's not only in Russia that women's ice hockey gets the short end of the stick; this seems to occur on an international level, too. At Global Comment, Sarah Jaffe observed that she had "heard almost no discussion of women's ice hockey... The women's games seem to be held at times that won't 'interfere' with the men's tournament or other events that need the ice." It hardly bears mentioning, of course, that the shunting aside of women's professional sports doesn't just happen every four years - it's a year-round phenomenon, especially here in the US.

It's important to make the distinction, as Jaffe does, between individual sports and team sports. "Think of women athletes you've seen on TV recently," she writes. "Chances are most of them are individuals," offering Serena Williams as an example. Even when we are presented with women's sports teams, they're either sexed up, to minimize their deviance from traditional femininity, or, as Jaffe notes, we're encouraged to focus our attentions on one or two especially photogenic team members, like Mia Hamm.

In response to our lack of national support for women's pro sports, and women's team sports, especially, Veronica Arreola of Viva La Feminista is encouraging people to take this simple pledge: "I pledge to attend one women's sports event in 2010." It can be a college game or a pro game, it doesn't matter - the point is to show your support, with your presence and with your cash, since lack of spectators and lack of money are two common explanations given for the middling success of women's pro sports in this country. There's even a Facebook group you can join. It's so easy, and if you've ever played competitive sports, you know how great it feels to have a crowd cheering you on. So go buy one ticket. Go to just one game. And be one more yelling, screaming, women's sports-supporting person in the crowd. You can even wear facepaint if you really, really want to.

A friend recently pointed out to me that our weekly hometown paper disproportionately covers boy’s sports over girl’s sports. I never noticed because the only sport I follow is professional baseball. (Go Sox!) How sad given the fact our high school girl’s teams have had some incredible championship years. The boy’s teams haven’t fared as well. Still it shouldn’t surprise me.

Last year I questioned a local blogger on a statement he made that “people prefer men’s sports to women’s.” I asked, do we really “know” that or do we know that historically men’s sports have dominated the media? Another commenter on the blog cited advertising dollars and paying audiences as proof “that men’s sports are preferred by more people.” And further proof? He watches men’s sports almost exclusively. I bet during the recent Olympics he watched men’s ski jumping and not women’s. Oh right, the women weren’t allowed to compete. Anyway, enough complaining. Time to back our words with action.

If you understand the benefits of girls participating in team sports, if you believe women deserve equality, if you are tired of the mainstream media serving up male athletes and ignoring the women, join this group on Facebook, “I pledge to attend one women’s sports event (college/pro) in 2010.”

The group’s mission is fantastic. From the Facebook page, “Being pro-woman, feminist or full of girl power requires action. Spurred on by the attention women athletes received during the Olympics and the history of that attention waning afterward, we created this challenge to put our money where our heart is. Everyone who becomes a fan is pledging to attend one, just one, professional or collegiate, women’s sporting event by the end of 2010.” The group was partially inspired by this commentary from Frank Deford of NPR.

As we’ve said before, if we expect little girls to believe us when we tell them they can grow up and be anything they want, then we need to show them strong women role models. And this mother wouldn’t mind watching her daughter pitch for the Red Sox someday.

I’ve always had mixed feelings about this.  For a long time, many women’s college basketball teams have used men as “practice players.”  The University of Tennessee’s Pat Summitt (the most successful coach ever in college basketball—women or men) is generally considered as the originator, and biggest proponent, of using male practice players.  Many other famous women coaches are also big proponents, including Hall of Famers C. Vivian Stringer, Margaret Wade, and Jody Conradt.  Stringer went so far as to say that “It’s the male practice players that allow us to get better. … Male practice players are the most important element to the continued growth of women’s basketball players.”

The typical male practice player would be someone who was a good player in high school, but not good enough to play at the college level.  Being a practice player would allow them to continue playing at a higher level than pickup and intramural games, and would allow them to contribute to the success of the women’s team.  (I remember well a 1999 Sports Illustrated article about male practice players.)  The thinking behind using male practice players is that, because the males are typically bigger and stronger, having them practice against the women will make the women more physical and better overall.  Former Maryland star, and current WNBA player, Laura Harper said “When you’re going against 6-4, 200-pound guys, you have to be aggressive.  It just makes the level of practice higher, more exciting, more physical. When you get in a game, it’s second nature to take the contact. Our guys make us a better team.”

In 2007, the NCAA’s Committee on Women’s Athletics tried to get rid of male practice players.  Their reasoning was that using male practice players decreases opportunities for women.  The group said that the use of males  “violates the spirit of gender equity and Title IX” and “to have talented, capable female student-athletes stand on the sidelines during official practice while the team’s starters practice against ‘more talented men’ is a lost opportunity.”  The effort failed and the current NCAA rule is that male practice players must be enrolled full-time in classes and cannot be rewarded in any way for their practice time with the team.

As I said, I have always had mixed feelings about using male practice players.  On the one hand, I think that anything that helps the players become better is a good thing and will help lead to more fans of the game.  On the other hand, it seems as if it would be a lost opportunity for female players who are not quite good enough to make the team.  Basketball is a fun game, even in practice, and the benefits that the male practice players get (having fun, improving their basketball skills, learning new life skills, helping to improve the team) would be lost for the women.

But the following situation is clearer for me.  The Phoenix Mercury of the WNBA just announced that it is seeking 15 male players to practice against the team.   Apparently, the only compensation will be a new pair of basketball shoes and a ticket to one game.  And, also apparently since the announcement is very brief, the players chosen would practice against the team throughout the season.  (BTW, the coach is male, but the general manager of the team is Ann Meyers, a Hall of Fame player.)  I see no benefit for this at all.  The WNBA players are already physical and skilled and, in my opinion, will not improve much, if at all, by practicing against male players.  It seems more like a publicity stunt that will fail because all it really does is take the focus away from where it should be—the skills and competitiveness of the players–and, instead, implies that the women’s skills are not good enough.

The skills of the WNBA players are plenty good.  In fact, many people like the women’s game better because it is closer to the real skills of basketball rather than the emphasis on dunking in men’s college and professional games.   And, so, I hope the officials of the Phoenix Mercury change their minds.

This is the 15th post in a weekly feature here at Spare Candy, called "In History." Some posts might be little more than a photo, others full on features. If you have any suggestions for a person or event that should be featured, or would like to submit a guest post or cross post, e-mail me at rosiered23 (at) sparecandy (dot) com.

Guest post! Today's column comes via V. Sobol, a communications professional striving to raise her pre-teen daughter as a feminist, and author of the lovely blog "Raising Feminist Girls," where this piece was first posted. Many thanks for allowing Spare Candy to share your writing!

Thanks to Sylvia Pressler, young girls have more opportunity in sports. A jurist and an author, Pressler is best known for her 1973 ruling that opened the doors for girls to play Little League baseball. The case involved 12-year-old Maria Pepe of Hoboken, NJ, who had joined the local Little League team but was forbidden to play by the League's national officials. With the help of N.O.W., Pepe sued. Pressler ruled in her favor, claiming, "The institution of Little League is as American as hot dogs and apple pie. There's no reason why that part of America should be withheld from girls." The following year, Little League baseball agreed to allow girls to play on its baseball teams--and it started a softball division as well. Pressler later rose to be the presiding administrative judge of the New Jersey Appellate Division. She passed away earlier this year at the age of 75.

I was born too soon to benefit from Pressler's ruling, and also to fully benefit from Title IX -- the landmark 1972 act that mandated equality in educational programs and revolutionized girls' sports in school and college. But as the youngest of four girls I was always an athlete, a.k.a. "tomboy"--and I do believe my pursuit of sports kept me out of trouble in those early teen years. Rather than hang out and drink and smoke, my friend Angel and I played basketball with the boys every night at the outdoor basketball court--lit by a single lightbulb--at the local schoolyard. We had fun, avoided trouble, got exercise, and learned how to deal with boys as friends, not just boyfriends.

I'm a strong believer that playing sports offers benefits for all kids, and I've always encouraged my daughter to participate. Hats off to Sylvia Pressler for giving all girls a bit more opportunity.

Sanguinity and Jen B. sent in a “That’s Gay” segment discussing, humorously, the discourse around figure skater Johnny Weir’s sexual orientation and whether he should be allowed to skate the way he does:

Quoting from The Sport Journal, Jen writes:

While figure skating is rumored to have the highest proportion of homosexual men of any amateur competitive sport, it is ironically a sport in which men must exhibit the most blatantly heterosexual signs to be successful and to receive commercial endorsements… at the 2001 World Championships in Vancouver when a well-known male Canadian skater was contacted by a gay magazine about the possibility of doing a feature story on him, he was told by Skate Canada that he must decline the request. As one coach said to me, “that is not the sort of picture that Skate Canada wants to paint for the country, especially in an international forum.” Every effort is made to construct such skaters as heterosexual.

We’ve posted on Skate Canada’s get “tough” campaign here.

(View original at http://contexts.org/socimages)