The importance of power in women's tennis?

The 2010 U.S. Open in tennis is currently under way, and on August 25 the New York Times ran an article entitled How Power Has Transformed Women’s Tennis by Michael Kimmelman. The crux of the article is that female tennis players today are “stronger, bigger, faster, and better trained” than in the past. Commentators have attributed this trend toward physical dominance to two players in particular – Venus and Serena Williams.

At least one major contender, Kim Clijsters, has conceded that the Williams sisters have raised the bar for female players by forcing them to increase their power. By the end of the article Kimmelman questions whether the Williams sisters have redefined the paradigm of what it takes to be a perennial champion in women’s tennis. For example, teenage girls (who have historically found success in tennis, but are not as physically developed as full-grown women) are being held back by professional organizations in their development of the game. The "all-around package" of a good game seems to have taken a backseat to raw power.

Before I share my own thoughts on this situation, I should mention that I do not follow tennis anymore, though I used to watch my fair share when I was younger. With that said, I do not know if there is something that a tennis fan would understand about the fundamentals of the game that I do not, but I do not see the Williams’ domination as particularly shocking or surprising.

As the article seems to suggest, there are two possible ways of approaching the game: power and an all-around game. Furthermore, it seems possible that in the past women maybe were not expected to have power games. However, tennis players, like professionals in any other sport, push the boundaries of what is physically possible - or maybe more accurately, the physical minimum of what it takes to win. For example, just compare football players back when they still wore leather helmets to players today who look and move like human steam engines. My point is, that tennis, like any other sport, must necessarily require physical exertion. In some sports physical power and speed are more important than in others. (Compare football and golf.) In a solo sport like tennis, where the playing field is a large area for one person to cover, maybe the Williams sisters have figured out that raw power and speed trump finesse, balance, and strategy every time. Which brings me to another talking point of the article.

In the article, Jelena Jankovic, a former number one, now ranked third stated:

In the last couple of years, as women’s tennis has become more popular, some of the girls on tour have also been trying to look nicer, more feminine, and, face it, there are fans who like to look at girls in nice tennis dresses … It has become very competitive in this sense, but the level of tennis is very high. It all depends on how you want to develop your brand. Some players want to be known as great tennis players, others for something else.

I think this is a critical point to consider in this discussion. What do people want out of women’s tennis? How “should” the women’s game be? Why are these relevant questions? I think peoples’ expectations of women’s tennis ultimately frame this discussion. As I mentioned earlier, maybe people did not expect such power-focused performances from women’s tennis. And as the above quote points out, some players are known less for their playing ability than their striking beauty. (Anna Kournikova, one of the most famous tennis players of recent memory, never won a major Grand Slam singles title.)

My ultimate point is that physicality is, at the very least, important in a game where the (simplified) goal is to hit the ball past your opponent. Certain strategies (hitting a ball harder and faster than your opponent can) may be better than others (good ball placement), especially if your opponent has the physical capabilities of countering your “other” strategy (running down well-placed hits).

Along similar lines, if the goal of a female tennis player is to win, physicality is also a better attribute than looking good in a tennis skirt. (Not that the two are mutually exclusive.) It seems to me that the Williams’ have not adhered to either society’s or the tennis establishment’s conception of how female tennis players “should” look, “should” develop, or “should” play – and they have found success in doing so.

As a final note, Jamie Foxx offers another perspective in song form: Can I Be Your Tennis Ball? (Credit to a fellow King Hall friend for the video, as well as for the article upon which I based this post.)

Female pioneers in the law

I've always thought of women's entrance into the legal profession as something that took place in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. I was therefore shocked to read that Yale Law School did not admit female students until the late 1960s. (Deborah L. Rhode, The "No-Problem" Problem: Feminist Challenges and Cultural Change, 100 Yale L.J. (1991)) Upon rereading I realized that I was mistaken- it was Yale’s undergraduate school that was only desegregated in the 1960s. Its law school had been open to women since the early twentieth century.

Still, this got me thinking about, and then researching, women legal pioneers. As it turns out, the history of women in the law is much longer and more varied then I would have expected, and women have used a wide range of strategies to secure their entrance into the legal world.

One strategy was simply hiding gender. According to Rhode, Alice Rufie Blake Jordan tricked Yale Law School into admitting her through the simple subterfuge of putting her initials, rather than her full name, on her application. Yale responded by banning all women from the law school until 1919.

More dramatically, 13th century Italian Bettisia Gozzadini disguised herself as a man to study law in Bologna. Interestingly, the 13th century Bologna university seems to have been more tolerant of women than 19th century Yale. After Gozzadini's gender was revealed she continued to teach law at the university, albeit behind a screen so she would not distract male students. (Perhaps someone should have suggested this trick to the 19th century law schools that worried female "Portias" would distract male students.)

Another way women entered law was by turning sexism’s own stereotypes about the “gentler sex” and the “angel of the home” against it. Also according to Rhode, 19th century American feminists argued that “[u]nder some circumstances, a woman lawyer's ‘silver voice’ might ‘accomplish more than theseverity and sternness of a man could achieve.’”

Similarly, women have often gained initial entrance to the world of law through family law. British lawyers initially entered law through this area of practice in the early twentieth century and, more recently, the Saudi Arabian government proposed that female lawyers be allowed to appear in family law courts. Of course, women should be able to practice in all areas of law, but I appreciate these pioneers success in getting a foot in the door and opening up the legal field to present and future generations of women.

A few other notable female legal pioneers:

Margarte Brent was the first American female lawyer, trying over hundred cases beginning in the 1640s (!).

Lucy Terry Prince was a poet, farmer, and former slave, who, in 1797, waved aside her lawyer and became the first woman to argue a case before the Supreme Court.

Cornelia Sorabji was the first woman to earn a law degree from Oxford, the first female Indian barrister, and an activist for women's rights.

Is Iran moving in the right direction with LGBT issues?

Following President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s statement, “In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country,” which was made at Columbia University in September of 2007, many questions have began to surface as to the state of affairs of the LGBT community in Iran.

Is there truly no LGBT community in Iran?

Contrary to President Ahmadinejad’s statement, there are some estimates that indicate that at least 3% of Iran’s population identifies as part of the gay community. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/25/nohomosexualityhere. It should be noted, however, that these are not exact estimates. Further evidence of the existence of a gay community can be inferred from the criminal code of Iran, which finds that under Iran’s theocratic Islamic government, the “crime” of being homosexual is punishable by death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Iran. It is difficult to understand why Iran would have a criminal code for homosexuals if there indeed are no homosexuals in Iran.

Although Iran takes a very harsh stance against homosexuality, in recent years it has become very accepting of the transsexual community. In fact one cleric, Hojatulislam Kariminia has publicly stated:

"I want to suggest that the right of transsexuals to change their gender is a human right." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4115535.stm.

With this support from the clerics themselves, the transsexual community has been moving full force in Iran. Dr Mirjalali, Iran’s lead gender reassignment surgeon, recently stated that in past 12 years he has done 320 of these operations. More than six time the amount of any European country. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4115535.stm. Today Iran, is only second to Thailand when it comes to gender reassignment surgery. http://socyberty.com/gay-lesbians/in-iran-homosexuals-put-to-death-but-transsexuals-are-okay/.

So why the sudden increase in the transsexual community of Iran?

A recent HBO special really explored this question by following a few of the Pre-Op transsexuals through the process required to be qualified for gender reassignment and through the actual surgical procedure as well. One of the reasons that seemed to explain the increase in transsexuals in Iran is the fear of being categorized as a homosexual. As mentioned above, Iran has a zero tolerance for homosexuality, which can be punishable by death. Thus, many homosexuals find that a sex change operation is a preferable alternative to being openly homosexual. (HBO: Be Like Others ). As can be seen from this documentary, there are a lot of physiological draw-backs for individuals opting for the operation. Although Iranian clerics have recognized the operation as a human right, the society as a whole is very much unsupportive of this community.

Trailer for Be Like Others
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFvHJ9qLS8g&feature=player_embedded

Although this is not the best solution for Iran’s gay community, the hope is that recognition of transexuality as a human right by the Iranian clerics is the start of acceptance of other LGBT community member as well.

Can legalization really be a form of legitimacy?

I am currently reading a beautiful book titled Let the Great World Spin, which compiles a variety of stories and perspectives centered on Philipe Petit's tightrope walk across the World Trade Center buildings in 1974. While the image of the tightrope walker does convey an evocative image in itself, one particular story within the novel is also as striking. This is the story of Tillie, a prostitute, mother, and lover who is imprisoned in jail on the charge of prostitution and petty crimes. There is much to be said about Tillie, but as she tells the reader, "Hooking was born in me...[f]rom my bedroom window I could see the girls work...When I was thirteen I already had my hands on the hip of a man in a raspberry suit."

Prostitution can be categorized as the world's oldest profession. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. What is relevant, however, is that this cycle of prostitution remains today. Recently, one of the discussions regarding prostitution has stemmed from whether there is a way to legitimize prostitution through legalizing the profession. Perhaps this focus on legitimacy would allow these women to take control of their bodies, out of the hands of their pimps, and reclaim their voice in a profession that ultimately marginalizes women within society.

Some reasons legalization would further such rights include a more regulated health care system to ensure regular testing for STDs and further protection against unwanted pregnancies - which already overburdened NGOs and Planned Parenthood facilities cannot handle. Another more family policy oriented reason could be a way to ensure that these women have a continuous source of income to support their families, rather than being thrown into jail at the whim of police officers. Sudhir Venkatesh, an economist who has studied the system of prostitution, also argues that legalization could have a detrimental effect, which would include limiting aid from non-profit organizations and could in fact include these women losing their livelihood due to a "flood in the market."

While there are certainly pros and cons to the argument, the crux of the issue still remains. Prostitution's perception is contingent on society's perception of women. Legalization might be one way to legitimize prostitution, but ultimately, these women will never be able to find a place in society without a general understanding that sex is not the only function of women as a whole. Rather, once women are seen on an equal basis, and are able to be viewed as more than a vehicle for sex, perhaps legalization would truly have an impact, or in an ideal world, would get rid of the institution itself. If, however, women continue to be put down - both in reference to their sex and in reference to prostitution - in a detrimental fashion, as this article shows, no form of legalization will legitimize the role of marginalized women.

Entering the "Twilight" Zone

I told myself I wasn't going to give in to the Twilight saga madness. I may have read the Harry Potter books (more times than I'd ever admit), but that was different. I was younger. Now at the ripe old age of 22, I would focus on "serious" literature.

Yeah, right.

I totally caved. I wanted to see what all the fuss was about! For those of you that have been able to avoid it, the Twilight saga books by Stephenie Meyer are basically a tale of vampire love. Pre-teens and middle age women alike swoon over the story of the handsome vampire Edward and his human love Isabella (Bella) Swan. Overall, I found the four books to be entertaining and somewhat addictive.

But.

There were a few downsides. First, the writing was exceptionally bad. Every couple of pages, the author felt an overpowering need to add "And then I looked at him, and I forgot to breathe."

*Gag*

More worrisome, however, were the things not so plainly stated. While the author romanticizes Bella and Edward's relationship, in many ways it is extremely unhealthy, controlling and (from a non-vampire perspective) borderline psychotic:

He watches her while she sleeps and follows her around without her knowledge.
Although he has the body of a 17 year old, he is a century old. She actually is 17 years old.
He is attracted to Bella because of how she smells.
He constantly tells her what to do under the guise of being "protective."
He talks down to her and is violent by nature.
She is willing to give up her life (and possibly soul) up for him after only a month.
Etc...

Creepy. Yet this wouldn't bother me so much but for the fact that these books are widely read by young teenage girls. Girls who would have a hard time distinguishing between unhealthy fantasy relationships and reality. Girls who might come across a real life Edward and see his control as "love" and his violent tendencies as "passion". Girls who need good role models. I have reason to worry.

"I'm only 14 so I know there's plenty of time for me to find love but I know it won't even compare to the love Edward and Bella have."

Just google "twilight unhealthy relationships" and numerous articles voice similar concerns. Teens blog about how they no longer like their school crush because after Twilight he seems so "normal." There's even a new term for this phenomenon, "twilight depression".

From a feminist perspective, the main character herself is depressing. The author sought to make Bella into a Jane Austen type heroine, but only succeeds in showing her as weak and insecure, listening to Edward's every word. Edward is, literally, Bella's whole life. Family, school, and friends disappear into the background the moment she lays eyes on him.

What kind of message does that send to young women? Do you need a relationship to feel complete? Can't you be happy on your own? Of course, (healthy) romantic relationships are very important to many people, but so are the many other wonderful aspects of life.

Although the Twilight saga offered me hours of entertainment (and distraction), I walked away feeling slightly disappointed. I wanted Bella to be strong.

For all the aspiring novelists out there:
Please give us a real heroine, someone pre-teens and adult women alike can look up to.

The Great Recession's Continued Impact on Single California Moms

I don’t know about you, but as a single parent and a law student, the impact of this “economic downturn” is hitting me pretty hard. Although my son is 27, he had to resort to doing three retail jobs until he could find new work in his profession of environmental policy. Finally after 16 months, he landed the great job. However, a week before he was to begin getting benefits, they dropped his hours. I worry about what would happen to my little family unit if he had a major health crisis without health insurance. Because he is 27, I can’t insure him under the Obama plan which covers children up to age 26.

Its hard not earning an income going to school full-time and taking care of an aging parent, but I am in the home stretch and will complete law school in 2011. Mildly put, the job prospects are rather bleak for most third year law students. But, not being one to wallow in self-pity, I decided to do a bit of checking on how other women were doing in the great state of California. Not great.

"In 2009, California’s unmarried women with children were nearly twice as likely as their married counterparts – both men and women – to be unemployed, and their average weekly hours of work declined more than at any point in the last 20 years, diminishing their total earnings.” (California Budget Project May 2010.)

Concern over California’s 2010-2011 Budget is producing significant worry particularly for low income women and women of color. Unlike powerful business and industry, low- income women’s voices are not heard as loudly where government is concerned.

However, the California Coalition for Reproductive Freedom (CCRF), comprised of over 50 independent organizations representing California’s diverse communities is rightly focused on trying to preserve state programs for these women.

Some programs that are on the chopping block:

• Access for Infants and Mothers (AIM)*
• Every Woman Counts
• CalWORKS
• Family PACT
• Healthy Families
• Medi-Cal

These programs are part of low-income women’s safety net of critical health (particularly reproductive health) and human services.

According to CCRF,

“Preserving the safety net is critical to low-income women’s health and well-being, and necessary for preventing greater health disparities. Low-income women are four times more likely than higher-income women to report being in fair or poor health. Additionally, while one-third of California women ages 18-64 (34%) have low incomes, women of color are more likely to be low-income.”

In a great article by Judy Patrick, she says:

"Women make up more than three out of five adults enrolled in the major safety-net programs -- the CalWORKs Program, the Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP) Program, and the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Program -- programs that help low-income women support their families, find jobs, and help those who are elderly or have disabilities remain safely in their homes.” (See also this article on Schwarzenegger's budget proposal.)

My worries look small in comparison to these women, because without these services, without this safety-net, they could find themselves in life-threatening situations and increase the health disparities especially among women of color. Women of all socio-economic classes must demand a budget that protects California's single moms and their families, who are struggling to make it through these tough economic times.

New restrictions on funding or elimination of programs for things like breast cancer screenings for the poor could result in more women getting breast cancer. This will create a situation where the taxpayer burden to pay for the care is higher. (It costs less to do a breast cancer screening than it does to treat breast cancer that has gone undetected and spread.) Additionally, without screenings available to women of color and lower socio-economic status, the medical community will be deprived of the very critical statistical information that leads to improved treatment or even preventative measures for cancer.

In the absence of funding abortions for the poor, a significant percentage of women will have pregnancies that would have otherwise been aborted. Costs to the taxpayer for programs that offer a first-trimester nonhospital abortion will always be far less than the cost of subsidizing prenatal and delivery services. There are also significant secondary costs of an unwanted birth, such as the additional time a woman spends on welfare and struggling to provide for her family trying to regain self-sufficiency.

When there are a higher number of uninsured people in California, they will wait until their health issues are serious before they seek care. The care will likely be in an emergency room at a much higher cost that routine care. The hospitals will need to pass on that cost to the folks that have insurance. So the wealthy and middle class will absorb the additional expense in the form of increased health premiums. So, without these less expensive programs, the rich will pay anyway.

Finally, there is the issue of solidarity. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, in a speech in Nashville, Tennessee in December 1962:

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

If privileged women allow a budget that disproportionally impacts poor women’s access to critical health care, it can erode access for all women.

After all, there is no guarantee that wealthy women will always remains so.