Women in professional sports- fantasy or reality?

The night before our first Feminist Legal Theory class this past week, I was doing some bedtime channel surfing and stumbled upon a re-run of Tosh.0, a series hosted by comedian Daniel Tosh that features online video clips. One segment of the show, “Web Redemption,” featured a 17 year-old boy (young man?) who had previously been featured in a clip that depicted him losing an “MMA” (mixed martial arts) fight to a 29 year-old woman. As the segment’s title implies, the young man was given the opportunity to “redeem” himself for losing this fight (for the record, not only did he lose the fight, but the video shows that he was “choked out” by the young woman, rendering him unconscious). Tosh commented that they asked the pair to do the rematch to find out “who really is the more powerful sex” and in the same breath said, “it’s men.” The young man prevailed in the rematch (watch video here- viewer discretion is definitely advised). Although the segment was surely intended to be comedic, it got me wondering, why can’t a woman prevail in a professional fight against a man without that man needing to “redeem” himself later? Especially in a sport where opponents are pitted against one another based on their weight class, why is it surprising for a woman to come out on top?

Living with my sports-fanatic boyfriend, I watch a lot of baseball, basketball, football, and Sports Center (which really just wraps up all the games I’ve been watching all week into one show). Don’t get me wrong, I love my Giants baseball, but I realized that with the exception of the women’s volleyball, gymnastics, swimming, track, and diving events I managed to squeeze in during the Olympics this summer, ALL of the sports I watch are men’s sports. Even with Title IX working for women’s sports in educational institutions, it is hard to ignore the fact that women’s professional sports are rarely aired on television. It seems like this phenomenon is often blamed on the fact that viewers are less interested in watching women’s sports than men’s, and therefore, men’s sports are “where the money is” in sports broadcasting.

I came across an ESPN article that featured Nancy Lieberman, a former professional basketball player, who now coaches the NBA Development League’s Texas Legends. She pointed out that by browsing through some professional male athlete’s Twitter pages, you can find praise for college and professional female athletes. But does this mean that male athletes or the sports-watching population at large follow women’s teams as closely as their favorite male teams or that they would support the inclusion of women in previously male dominated sports?

The article, an introduction to a series that took an in depth look at professional baseball, football, basketball, hockey, golf and tennis to determine whether a talented female athlete could play with the guys and be accepted as their peer, points out that in the 40 years since Title IX’s passage, women’s participation in sports has risen dramatically, and their skill level has improved. The article reported that while some individuals who were interviewed said that a woman could be accepted as a professional if “she helped her team win,” others clung to the classic “biological differences” rationale after concluding that the idea is “unrealistic.”

Dr. Earl Smith, the director of American Ethnic studies at Wake Forest, commented that the physical challenges women face in breaking into men’s professional sports are “dwarfed by sociological ones.” Female athletes are often criticized for not being feminine enough, and their role as cheerleaders, as opposed to competitors, is often reinforced during commercial breaks and time outs. Smith said, “There are women who can kick a football or a soccer ball, but then you have to ask yourself as a parent, would you put your daughter through that just to play a game?”

I will likely follow up on this subject, as there is so much more to it than one blog post can express, but I’d like to finish this one with a shout-out to a few of the stand out female medalists of the 2012 Olympics: Missy Franklin (swimming), the U.S. Women’s Gymnastics team, the U.S. Women’s Soccer team, and Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh-Jennings (beach volleyball). Maybe if sports fans were as excited about professional women's sports as they were about the women's Olympic events this past summer, we would see more female sporting events on television.

New Wave Home-Schooling is Antifeminist

Who are new wave home-schoolers? The ‘NewWavers’ come from the far left and the far right. On the right, I give you the Rick Santorums (see Andrew O'Hehir's Rick Santorum's Home School Hokum) and the Quiverfull. Full of the babies God ordained, and often short on formal education (see Kristin Rawl's Home Schooled and Illiterate) – they are certain about one thing, their kids are not going to suffer the indignity of exposure to secular humanism (i.e. David Goetsch's Liberal Lies About Homeschooling). On the left, the new-school homesteaders don't shy away from DIY parenting (see Dana Goldstein's Liberals Don't Home School Your Kids, Milton Gaither's Home Schooling Goes Mainstream and Margaret Heidenry's My Parents Were Home-Schooling Anarchists), this trend seems to coincide with the increasing desire to reconnect with the American frontier – à la Laura Ingalls – crafting beer cozies, planting tomatoes and fava beans in the yard, and practicing attachment parenting (full disclosure – I harbor a deep and abiding love for tomatoes, favas, and cozies of all kind).  I'm oversimplifying, of course, but as the movement grows, it is certain that more transparency and debate are needed.

Why would these seemingly highly divergent families reach the same conclusion on childhood education? What is driving this exodus from the once revered public school system? The glue that binds is control. They may point to perceived gaps in curricula, or failing test scores, but these excuses conceal a much simpler desire, the desire to exert control. Control over what their progeny are exposed to, and a rejection of leaving it to outsiders to decide. These parents may want to insulate their children from assault by the Christianity-default, or unrestrained bullying, or they may wish to bury the kids in Veggie Tales and ABC Bible Verses, but they share in their desire to reject and circumvent government regulation and they have no qualms about their ability to be better educators than the professionals.  But we have no way to know whether these children are learning at all, whether they are faring better or worse from a purely academic standpoint than their traditional-school counterparts.

More to the point, how is the desire to play an active role in one’s child’s education possibly anti-feminist? There are a multitude of reasons why I view this particular brand of homeschooling as anti-progressive, but the anti-feminist ramifications stem from one extremely simple truth. Mothers almost universally fill the position of 21st Century schoolmarm within the family. Educated, uneducated, wealthy, poor, professors, lawyers, waiters, salesmen and accountants – it is the mother who gives up her career/education/independence to educate the children and the father who labors to finance this luxury.  This is not to say that homeschooling can never be progressive – or can never encourage gender equity - but this incarnation, reinforcing gender regressive modeling, is not going to succeed in in doing it. Putting aside the common arguments that women are either more innate nurturers, or that it is more practical to take women out of the workforce (as the maligned gender makes a mere 70¢ on her male counterpart’s dollar), placing women exclusively in the role of teacher-mother has the potential to weaken the social, familial and political advancements women have made.

Here are just a few reasons why. Returning mothers to the home to devote the entirety of their selves to their children subordinates women, albeit voluntarily in most cases (Quiverfull aside). It requiring her to be tethered to her children at all times. It broadcasts to the child that the mother is slave to the child’s needs – while the father has an identity that transcends the family. It ties intrinsically mother’s personhood to the role of motherhood. It teaches children that education is inextricably linked with being mothered, with possible consequences for the child’s education once she naturally seeks to establish maturity by rebelling against parental control. It would appear to inhibit in many cases the ability of both mother and child to develop a separate self, a life beyond their relationship.

Finally, the home-schooling mother is necessarily dependent on father for economic survival. This doesn’t just affect the balance of power in the marriage – but it fosters a feeling of entrapment in the way in which women were trapped by marriage before the feminist revolution. If the mother leaves the marriage, she loses her economic lifeline. Most likely she will now need to place the child in traditional school, and she will need to return to the workforce after prolonged absence. For the woman who has convinced herself that such actions are harmful to the child – as she must have – and who has been consumed by the role of mother so entirely, it will feel supremely selfish and ‘wrong’ to take this step.

Homeschooling parents are not right or wrong, they are not good or bad. Homeschooling can no doubt lead to positive outcomes for many children.  But these issues, the ramifications for all involved, must be weighted against any perceived benefits to the child’s educational or social development.  Moreover, regardless of all else, regulation is needed to ensure that these children are in fact receiving an education.

Cosmetics and gender inequality: Part I

Anyway you slice it, the cosmetics industry is huge. Huffington Post recently pointed to a study that found that anti-aging products alone are a $80 billion market, and predicted to be more than $114 billion by 2015.

 My first thought: imagine what else we could put $80 billion dollars towards: education, medicine, food, or even leisure activities!

My second thought: image what this savings could do for women. I couldn't easily find any current statistics, but it seems likely that women account for a far greater percentage of those sales. It baffles me that such a substantial amount of money is spent on beauty products, especially when you consider the true costs women incur to support such an industry.

The way I see it, the costs of such an industry are multi-fold.  The portion of income that women are spending on cosmetics makes them poor relative to men. A woman's time spent meeting an unobtainable definition of beauty is time she could have spent on education, work, or relaxation. The economic impact is also in the work place, including bias against women who do not fulfill their duties of a now 'standardized' daily makeup routine.

Costs beyond the pocketbook include women's health. A huge part of the cosmetics industry is devoted to looking thin, including diet products with startling health implications. Not only only are the products in themselves harmful, they encourage unhealthy dieting. The YWCA published a report in 2008 titled "Beauty at Any Cost." The YWCA report cites to a study that found that nearly 10 million women in the US suffer from an eating disorder. Compounding the implications of having so many women abusing their bodies, people with eating disorders also tend to suffer from low self-esteem. Low self-worth can limit a person's aspirations and dreams.

The YWCA report also points out that cosmetics are not subject to testing by the US Food and Drug Administration. It cites to studies showing that several ingredients found in US cosmetics products contain ingredients that are shown to cause damages to the liver and reproductive system.

Another non-economic cost is the creation of a culture that devalues women.  Selling cosmetics requires selling the message that a women's worth is, at least in part, based on her physical attractiveness as defined by the cosmetic companies.  This focus on the physical leads to self-objectification by women, which is then accepted throughout society.

What could drive so many women to spend so much money, risk their health, and devalue their self-worth in exchange for a promise to stop wrinkles? The answer is complicated, and I will attempt to address it in my next blog post.

"Makers": a great feminist website

I just discovered this web site: "Makers." It's a video platform for interviews with "trailblazing" women, and from the few that I've watched, it's pretty awesome. Enjoy!

The Wari

Wari. It is the word used to refer to Indonesian transvestites. The word has its roots in the Indonesian words for woman (wanita) and man (pria). I was first introduced to Wari through an article in Vice Magazine. I enjoyed the article so much I wanted to share it with you all.

However, before you clink on Vice’s link, a disclaimer is warranted: Vice is explicit and raw. A friend calls it tripe – something, especially speech or writing, that is false or worthless; rubbish. Please resist the urge to write-off Hannah Brooks’s article because it appears in Vice. Although Warias, Come Out And Plaayayay: Muslim Indonesian Transvestites are Persecuted but Beautiful is arguably as raw and explicit as the magazines’ content, Brooks gives the reader a rare opportunity to meet real people with complex issues that we would otherwise never have the privilege to meet. The intricacies of the people in her article are not hidden behind the formalities of a politically correct interview or writing style. Rather, Brooks uses the informality of her writing to recreate her interactions with the wari and honor who they are.

Before discussing what I found interesting about the article, it will be helpful to clarify key terms: transvestite and transgender. A transvestite is an individual who cross dresses, but are comfortable with the gender assigned to them at birth. Transgendered refers to an individual who has Gender Identity Disorder. Brooks never explains the distinction, which is extremely important to the identity of the wari.

Transvestites are nothing new. So neither are Wari. They suffer the same social ills as other transvestites: discrimination (as Brooks was informed, some cemeteries have a policy of excluding waris), violence (many wari make a living through prostitution, and unfortunately violence is a real possibility), and health concerns (HIV rates are high because “prostitution, scarcity of and lack of education about condoms, and lack of access to drugs needed to contain the virus” run ramped in the wari community).

However, I was unfamiliar with was the particularities of the wari’s plight, specifically the intense clash many experience between their identity and their religion. Wari push gender norms, which challenges the fundamental practices and beliefs of Islam. Yet, many wari are practicing Muslims. To learn more about the wari, Brooks visits a school for Islamic studies specifically tailored for the wari in Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

The school was founded by Maryani, “a mountain-size transsexual who eats with the ferocity of a man just released from a POW camp but applies eyeliner better than any woman” Brooks ever met. The school is called Senin-Kamis, which refers to the two days of the week the school is in session: Monday and Thursday. Senin-Kamis provides waris a safe place to pray. During prayer, Muslims are segregated by gender. Although wari can attend prayers as either men or women, participating in prayer as a female is not all that easy. While visiting Indonesia for the piece, Brooks met only one wari who attend prayer as a man. The others refrain from doing so because it makes them uncomfortable. A wari’s identity pushes the boundaries of gender, which in turn pushes them from their practice. Senin-Kamis provides waris a place to practice their religion free of negativity, and also serves as a safe haven and place to gather.

Brooks’s observation of the wari “beautification” was also a point of intense interest for me. In addition to clothing and make-up, Brooks found that the distinctive wari look is “magnified by silicone injections to their faces and breasts.” They do it because they want a more “softer, feminine” look. Younger wari claim older wari get boob jobs to increase their sex appeal. The face and breast jobs, and the stated reasons are not what shock me. What shocks me is the procedure itself. Brooks was allowed to observe a wari get silicon breast injections. Her description was unsettling to me. “The breast injection takes place in a boiling, unsterilized room … A glass jar of wobbly silicone appears along with ten thick syringes. Then a pair of anonymous hands performs the job with the confidence of someone who’s done this many times before. Even so, some of the syringes get stuck or clogged as the silicone is injected, and it takes a fair amount of force to push the stopper through. There are no bags: The silicone is forced straight under the skin.”

My initial response is a first-world response: “What!?! No gloves!?! No sterile room!?! STRAIGHT UNDER THE SKIN!?!” I understand these women are working with limited resources and procedures such as these are not necessarily at the top of their priority list. However, my heart is wounded by how these women are hurting their health because of their limited resources.

When Brooks asked Maryani if she would get a sex change, I was somewhat startled by her response. She believes that “she doesn’t have the right to change what God has given her.” Maryani’s response leaves me speechless. On one level, I understand what Maryani is saying: she believes God gave her certain things for a reason. What I cannot even begin to wrap my head around is the internal conflict (and the accompanying dialogue) arising from (1) believing you are a woman in a man’s body, and (2) believing that you should not change what God has given you, which happens to be the exact opposite of what you believe yourself to be. The spiritual strength and perseverance women like Maryani exhibit in their daily existence is breathtaking.

After reading Maryani’s response, I found it interesting that the Iran government has subsidized sex changes in an effort to prevent the sin of man on man sex. For example, in 1997 Maryam Hatoon Molkara received assistance from the Iran government to obtain a sex change. The New York Times article also touches upon how the Iran government has slowly opened up to the notion of sex changes.

In searching for more information on wari, I found an article by Prodita Sabarini informative. Lastly, keep your eyes out for Tales of the Wari, a documentary that is to be released soon. Although the film is no yet released, I strongly suggest checking out the trailer or the director, Kathy Huang, discussing the film for more insight into the lives of the waris.

Ani Difranco's remake of "which side are you on"

One of my favorite songs from the civil uprisings of the 1960s is Pete Seeger's "Which Side Are You On." Until today, I always thought that Mr. Seeger himself wrote the song. I was mistaken.

In actuality, "Which Side Are You On" was written in 1931 by a woman, Florence Reece. According to her wikipedia page, the song was written during a protest organized by Reece's husband, Sam Reece, on behalf of the United Mine Workers of America.  Mr. Seeger discovered the song in 1940, and his group, the Almanac Singers, recorded it that same year.

Many artists have covered the song since the Almanac Singers. Today, Ani Difranco released an album, using the song as the title track, which features Mr. Seeger, just for good measure. I have seen Ms. Difranco on tour several times, and on two of the occasions she performed different versions of the song. This version, I think, brings feminism to the forefront in an especially apt way (after, of course, Ms. Difranco makes a few digs against Reaganomics and the 1%). Her most relevant lyrics are:

my mother was a feminist
she taught me to see
that the road to ruin is paved
with patriarchy 

so, let the way of the women
guide democracy
from plunder and pollution
let mother earth be free 

feminism ain't about women
no, that's not who it is for
it's about a shifting consciousness
that'll bring an end to war 

so listen up you fathers
listen up you sons
which side are you on now
which side are you on

Here's a live version of the entire song, recorded live in December.

Ms. Difranco's rendition of the song shows that feminism has a place in the social struggles we are seeing today such as Occupy and gay rights.