Over at Women's Hoops, my buddy Ted is musing over the rise of Danica Patrick. He seems pretty disappointed:
So far, however, Patrick hasn't shown much interest in being a girl power icon. She's just a great young racer trying to revive interest in a fringe sport... and trying to make a buck.
And can anyone tell me exactly what's wrong with that?
This is a discussion that I've had with Ted before, and it goes something like this: I've never warmed to the vast majority of women's sports because it's always served with a heaping side of feminist activism, as if the sport alone couldn't sell itself if it wasn't seen in some larger context of the social struggle for equality.
That's part of the reason why I don't watch the WNBA (other than time constraints).
Granted, there was a time when seeing sports through that prism had real value, but for God's sake it's been more than 30 years since Billy Jean King knocked off Bobby Riggs, and women's sports ought to be able to stand on their own by now.
Certainly figure skating is able to. So is gymnastics and women's tennis, which is arguably as popular, or more popular, than the essentially invisible men's tour.
The bottom line is that the folks running women's sports assume that I'm guilty until proven innocent when it comes to gender sensitivity. And quite frankly, I'm worn out.
So when an athlete who lets her game do the talking comes along -- whether it's Danica Patrick, Michelle Wie or Annika Sorenstam -- it's an incredible breath of fresh air.
Certainly I'm not alone. Anyone who watched that race on Sunday and saw the crowd rise in unison when Patrick took the lead with ten laps to go would be hard pressed to conclude that IRL fans are a tribe of knuckle-dragging neanderthals.
And, ironically, all of this is conspiring to turn Patrick into something that Ted thinks she isn't -- a girl power icon. Perhaps she's becoming the sort of girl power icon that Ted might be a little uncomfortable with, but she's a girl power icon nonetheless.
Like Tiger Woods before her, Patrick isn't interested in delivering anybody's message other than her own. And what an incredible relief that is.
UPDATE -- COMMENT STRING CLOSED: Click here for what happens next.
Eric, my friend, I like our debates, but you have a tendency to misrepresent my views on your blog. This is probably the worst example.
I never said or implied that I was disappointed that Danica doesn’t aspire to be a girl power icon.
The paragraph you plucked was after the link to the ESPN article, where Sirak bemoaned the obstacles faced by female athletes, and praised Danica for overcoming them. My point was simply that Danica, from what I’ve seen from her in her interviews, doesn’t look at the world that way.
As the New York Times put it, she’s interested in raising her sport, not her gender.
That’s just the fact of the matter, and it’s a fairly neutral fact.
If there’s anything I’m disappointed about it is that this whole thing seems too inauthentic, too much the product of some massive Rahal marketing effort. In the dozen or so interviews I saw with her last week, I got the sense that every answer was scripted by some guy in a suit whose goal it was to maximize her profit potential.
It’s all just too corporate. She talks too much like a politician.
(You could talk about the FHM photos too. I didn’t — we’ve done that issue to death. Danica is an attractive woman, but to my mind, she looks better in her racing outfit than in a bikini bent over a car in a f***-me pose. In the latter, she just looks silly.)
I’m fine to let Danica deliver her own message. But what exactly is that message?
First, that she wants IRL to be more popular (that’s great, I guess, though I don’t know that I’ll ever tune in much). And second, that she wants to make a lot of money (that’s morally neutral, in my mind).
As to the larger issues of gender politics… lose the martyr complex, Eric. It’s unbecoming.
When did the “folks running women’s sports” say that you’re insufficiently gender sensitive? When did anyone accuse IRL fans of being knuckle-dragging neanderthals?
And what in god’s name are you talking about when you say that the vast majority of women’s sports are served with a heaping side of feminist activism?
Turn on a WNBA game this week. I challenge you to find a single piece of feminist theology in the broadcast. (Same for tennis, volleyball, skating, gymnastics, softball, golf, etc.)
Go check the WNBA website right now. Point me to ONE THING that counts as a “side of feminist activism.”
There isn’t any. What you’ll find are photo shoots, players talking about prom memories, players talking about their fitness routines, and lots of (mostly boring) basketball talk.
The closest thing you’ll find is a small bit about a campaign to raise money for cervical cancer research. Is that too much feminism for you?
The only gender political message ever served is a very bland one, and it goes something like this: women’s sports are good because they give young girls a positive female role model.
I guess I don’t really think of that as “feminist activism” so much as common sense and good parenting. If you really have a problem with that message, then yes, we do part ways at that point.
Eric can defend himself, of course, I’ll just point out for Ted this recent example of racing fans, which I think would include IRL fans, being portrayed rather negatively.
“[S]tock-car racing represents all that’s unsavory about red-state America: fossil-fuel bingeing; lust for violence; racial segregation; run-away Republicanism; anti-intellectualism (how much brain matter is required to go fast and turn left, ad infinitum?); the corn-pone memes of God and guns and guts; crass corporatization; Toby Keith anthems; and, of course, exquisitely bad fashion sense. … It’s as if ”Hee Haw” reruns were dominating prime time, and the Republic was slapping its collective knee at Grandpa Jones’s ‘What’s for supper?’ routine. With Nascar’s recent purchase of a swath of real estate on Staten Island, where it intends to plop down an 80,000-seat racetrack and retail center for the untapped New York City market, the onslaught seems poised on the brink of full-out conquest. Cover your ears, blue America. The Huns are revving their engines.”
don’t cheat, Lawrence. Include the full quote.
It begins:
“For a certain segment of the population, Nascar’s raid on American culture — its logo festoons everything from cellphones to honey jars to post office walls to panties; race coverage, it can seem, has bumped everything else off television; and, most piercingly, Nascar dads now get to pick our presidents — triggers the kind of fearful trembling the citizens of Gaul felt as the Huns came thundering over the hills. To these people, stock-car racing represents…”
and the piece after:
“Whether any of that distaste and criticism is justifiable is — like the pros and cons of requiring engine restrictor plates to control speeds at Daytona Speedway — open to debate. What’s beyond debate, however, is Nascar’s surging ascendancy in American sports, and thus, by extension, American culture.”
it’s a book review. the author is saying, in hyperbolic fashion, that some people have a distaste for NASCAR culture.
Do people in the real world actually say that NASCAR represents those things?
NASCAR and the IRL are two quite separate worlds — that’s the whole point of the Danica Patrick story, in fact: that she’s trying to rebuild the open-wheel side of racing, which is, right now in America, the forgotten stepbrother of stock car racing.
Does this really have anything to do with Danica Patrick and the WNBA?
“guilty until proven innocent when it comes to gender sensitivity. And quite frankly, I’m worn out.”
Right the f*** on!
Cheat? I think the article speaks for itself, which is why I linked the full piece. You can’t seriously say the author isn’t portraying race fans negatively, even if you believe he doesn’t personally hold the views he attributes to a wide segment of the population.
“Do people in the real world actually say that NASCAR represents those things?”
That racing fans are a bunch of backward rednecks? Quite a few, yes. Wasn’t that the point the NYT writer was making — that blue America views racing fans as “huns,” violent, racist and anti-intellectual? I don’t draw the distinction between NASCAR and IRL that you do, but then I’m only a casual observer of the sport.
“Does this really have anything to do with Danica Patrick and the WNBA?”
I thought the image of racing fans was being made an issue.
I
“Go check the WNBA website right now. Point me to ONE THING that counts as a ‘side of feminist activism.’ There isn’t any.”
[Chuckle] In light of Jim’s comment I guess Ted’s linkless assurances weren’t all I presumed them to be.
Don’t cheat, Ted.
Earlier today, I figured that Jim would write some contribution to this debate. I actually wrote a couple paragraphs to post; I was going to sign his name to it; I figured I could predict what he’d say.
I got it about 70% right.
(Jim, do you ever have anything to say about women’s sports that isn’t just an excuse for a Title IX rant? How ’bout talking about something else like, I don’t know… basketball? Have you ever even attended a game? No, don’t answer. I think I can predict that one too.)
And for your links, you find two archived stories from THREE YEARS AGO.
And did you even bother to read them?
The second link is an interview with three players and one coach. It asks: is Title IX still needed?
The short answers are ambivalent.
Katie Smith said: “It’s tough…. I hope they don’t scale (Title IX) back. I hope also that the men don’t have to lose a sport or lose a scholarship because it’s up to the universities and what they want to do. … If I had a son and his sport got cut because of Title IX then, yeah, I would be upset because you would want him to have the same opportunities that you had.”
Oh yeah, Jim, that answer is pretty much feminist dogma. The NWLC probably wrote it for her.
And I don’t see anyone mentioning using the words “wage gap” even once, much less ad nauseam.
(The Holly Hunter (“nationally known feminist activist” — oooh! scary!) show you refer to aired exactly one episode, as I recall. Again, that was three years ago.)
Yes, the WNBA has made some official statements supporting Title IX. It had a few things for the 30th anniversary. And it issued a press release during the committee process in ’02 suggesting vague opposition to changes.
But so what? There are a lot of moderate, non-feminist people who think that Title IX has been a good thing. I know you aren’t one of them. But does the celebration of Title IX really mean that the W has been coopted by radical feminist groups?
And it’s not as if Title IX (or anything else feminist) is a regular part of programming. I’ve never even heard it mentioned at a game or broadcast.
I don’t know what “rally” you’re talking about at the ASG — I wasn’t there. And if the Coop thing is true, that’s lame — I’ll try to ask her the truth about what happened.
(Note, however, that the W hasn’t said a word about the recent changes. If they were so hell-bent on feminist activism, wouldn’t they have said something? Why not give them some credit for staying out of the most recent fray, Jim? Would that pain you too much?)
The idea that the WNBA has been co-opted by WSF, NOW, et al. is retarded paranoia. Go to a WNBA game. Watch one on TV. Take an honest look around their website.
What you’ll see isn’t feminist activism. It’s just a fledgling sports league trying to survive, without much success.
Maybe you’re right that for some fans and some activists, the W only exists as an extension of feminist politics.
But what you can’t see is that the obverse is true for you. For you, the W only exists as a whipping boy for your anti-feminist politics. Just like the folks on the other side, you can’t talk about basketball without talking politics. And it’s equally tiresome.
It’s easier for you, more comfortable, to just sit back with your comfortable, self-assured theories.
Once in awhile, you should step out, and take a fair look at the world. And maybe, god forbid, even take a fair look at the WNBA. Do not remain intransigent to contrary evidence.
And stop pedalling bullshit about how it “always” comes with “healthy side” of feminist activism. If you actually watched a game, you would see what a lie that is.
It’s basketball. Most of the time — indeed, almost all the time — it’s just basketball.
and incidentally, those two links aren’t even on the site anymore.
If you search Google for WNBA & “Title IX”, that’s how you find them. On the site itself, there’s nothing of the sort.
What you’ll find on the site is utter crap.
Like, Lindsay Whalen on prom: “I had a dress that I thought looked pretty cute. Prom is just such a big deal and the hype is so great that the actual event can’t live up to the expectations. The pictures are cute. It’s fun, it was a fun day. I had a great time overall. And we had a sweet limo.”
Or, Swin Cash giving relationship advice: “At your age, life should be more than just fighting with your boyfriend. First, you may want to sit down and have a conversation with him letting him know about all the different emotional things that you both are going through.”
It’s tripe, and I hate it. But is not feminist. Indeed, if anything, it’s entirely the opposite.
Well, Ted, the arcade has unplugged the Wack-a-Martha game, leaving the Title IX (and the W, by extension) as the only option these days for those opposed to women’s sports.
The funny part of the “healthy side of feminist activism” remark is that the league has always operated in the spirit of Michael Jordan’s famous comment on the Harvey Gantt-Jesse Helms congressional race, “Republicans buy shoes, too.”
Which is to say the WNBA avoids controversy at all costs like any professional sports league. Jim may not like the law’s application, but Title IX is not exactly a powder keg topic. Doing a halftime celebration of its 30th anniversary in general isn’t any more political than retiring the number 42 for Jackie Robinson in baseball, or honoring Pat Tillman in football.
At the end of the day, anti-progressives seem to connect the WNBA and Title IX because its games simply send the message (to some) that there’s a good reason why the law exists as it is.
Whew. Where to start? The WNBA site lacks a search engine, so a simple Google search seems reasonable. Instead, I guess that
I don’t have any particular position about whether the W should or should not be political. Taking stances on political issues would attract some fans, repel others. I’m not sure which side would predominate.
As a descriptive matter, however, the W rarely does. Yes, the entire WNBA site reads like an issue of Seventeen magazine. And it always has. (The ABL was a little different, incidentally.)
The Title IX things were an exception, not the rule. Yes, the W believes that it wouldn’t exist if not for Title IX, so it celebrated the 30th birthday. So what?
Yes, the W in ’03 did some campaigning against the changes you adore. (No, it wasn’t the “centerpiece” of the ’03 ASG.) I don’t know whether that was a good idea or not… maybe they shouldn’t have. But that hardly proves that the W views itself, or consistently markets itself, as a vehicle for a feminist agenda.
What bothers me about Jim and Eric is how you know so little about this league and yet you feel so comfortable making broad generalizations about what it’s “about.”
Have you attended a game? Have you watched one on TV? Do you read the print coverage? Do you read the message boards? Do you know anyone who works for the teams? Have you had contact with players or coaches or owners?
If not, why do you feel like you know so much about what goes on there? Where do you get off asserting that the league is always presented with a feminist agenda?
Jim, we’ve had good debates on this site. I’ve learned quite a bit from you on some Title IX issues. Some of the things you say are interesting and well-informed. But some are not.
Sometimes you earn the invective. So does Eric.
Well, I’ve been looking around and asking around, trying to find out something about this big halftime political rally that the WNBA had at last year’s All-Star Game.
I can’t find anything at all. No one that I’ve asked knows what the devil I’m talking about.
There was no ASG last year, just an exhibition, As far as I know there was no rally or anything at all about Title IX. Nor was there in ’03.
In ’02, during All-Star weekend, there was a closed-door panel discussion, moderated by Judy Woodruff, with a few other panelists.
That’s the closest I could find. Am I missing something?