“No One Wants To Watch It” : The Year of Women in Sports

Originally posted at Left Hook: A Critical Review of Sport and Society 

If had a nickel for every headline this past year that claimed 2012 was the “Year of Women’s Sport” I would be able to buy a hefty bag of candies from Seven Eleven. This has even come from heavy hitters such as NPRTimeCNN, and The Advocate among others. Many of these proclamations were sparked by the 2012 London Olympics for its various milestones. All countries represented had female and male competitors for the first time; the US even had more female than male athletes in attendance. Women’s boxing made its debut as an Olympic sport. In Canada, we voted national soccer team captain Christine Sinclair as Canada’s Athlete of the Year. Those of you who caught Sinclair’s performance in the recent summer Olympics will not be surprised by this award selection. Her performance was simply mesmerizing. CBCSports.ca soccer writer Ben Rycroft has said, “For Sinclair, it was the best year by the best player Canada has ever produced — on the men or women’s side.”

I have, indeed, swooned over Sinclair’s moves and swooned over Canada’s swooning over this deserving soccer player. I had goose bumps when hearing 17-year-old boxing gold medalist Claressa Shields explain that she was “so mad” when she was told as a little kid that girls couldn’t box. And, I’m not the only one. That story won the best radio documentary of the year at the esteemed Third Coast Festival. The public are rooting for these women. I mean actually rooting – there’s no paternal “ain’t that sweet” sentimentality surrounding these athletes.

I do think the excitement around these stories is a marker in a cultural shift, of sorts, in North America. These female athletes are legitimate athletic role models.

However, this shift (as pleasing as it is to this sporty feminist’s eye) seems to be merely a chip in the facade of a greater and firmly rooted patriarchal foundation. I was thinking about this recently when my news alerts brought me to an article which rightfully pointed out that considering all the recent athletic achievements of women in sport it is pretty appalling to witness the stats associated with its media coverage. A 20 year study (1989-2009) by University of Southern California found that “women’s sports accounted for less than 2% of network news and ESPN’s SportsCenter.” I’ve seen these stats before so I don’t find them shocking any longer. What I am increasingly having a hard time digesting is how ordinary and banal people seem to find these facts. As one commenter under the above mentioned article wrote, “It is simple really. No one wants to watch it.”

It’s become a kind of cognitive dissonance. We can adore and give the highest acclaim to Christine Sinclair and at the same time we understand that it’s perfectly natural that she should never be able to make a living at soccer nor enjoy a supportive viewership year round.

How did we get here? To an era that seems to celebrate women in sport at the same time we expect it to remain second class. Well, I have some theories (with a little help from some wise sports scholars).

Theory 1: We keep putting all our equality eggs in the Olympic basket. 

It’s no secret that I find much about the International Olympic Committee and its reign to be problematic to say the least. But, this does not mean every person involved in every level of Olympic organizing consciously believes that women’s sport should remain a substandard spectacle. It does mean that any progress around gender equality will never be led by the IOC unless it happens to coincide with a presumed increase in profits or a benefit to the Olympic brand.

At the London Olympics opening ceremony IOC president Jacques Rogge said that the participation of at least one female athlete per participating country was “a major boost for gender equality.” As I mentioned above, this is one of the main cited reasons for 2012 being the Year of Women’s Sport. Last summer I asked Kathleen Lahey, a law professor and sport equity expert, about these declarations of equality in the Olympics. She responded, “I have likened that to saying: Oh well then women in Canada must be equal now because we have at least one woman MP sitting in the Canadian parliament from each province and territory. That is a very superficial definition of equality.”

To give further perspective, the first female IOC member was not accepted until 1981. Not exactly trailblazers of women’s inclusion. According to a recent IOC fact sheet, “more than 18.8%” of the current membership include women (4 of which are “honorary” members). Pardon me if I don’t rejoice in the apparent brag-worthy percentage of 18.8679 as marking some sort of dawning age of equality.

The IOC is not a democracy. It does not have internal laws like Canada’s Charter, the U.K.’s Human Rights Act 2010, or other non-discrimination provisions. In the words of acclaimed sport journalist Laura Robinson, the IOC is “powerful men who answer to no one [who] decide whether women can participate.” However, due to the hard work of canoeist Samantha Rippington and her legal team we may yet see some movement in the IOC’s and host country’s human rights accountability in the near future.

Theory 2: Ending homophobia in sport is seen as unrelated to ending sexism

“The usual way the people are taught to think in amerika is that each subject is in a little compartment and has no relation to any other subject.  For the most part, we receive fragments of unrelated knowledge, and our education follows no logical format or pattern.  It is exactly this kind of education that produces people who don’t have the ability to think for themselves and who are easily manipulated.” – Assata Shakur

A happy thing has occurred over the last couple years in men’s professional sport – homophobia against men (lesbian/queer women are largely ignored as all women in professional sport) is slowly becoming unacceptable. A few NFL players have come out in support of gay marriage and Patrick Burke’s You Can Play Project, dedicated to “ensuring equality, respect and safety for all athletes, without regard to sexual orientation” has seen much press and support.  

A couple months ago I attended a small workshop on the topic of homophobia in men’s professional sports. There were a few very young women in attendance who made it obvious that their participation was contingent on an extra credit for a first year undergraduate course at the host University. However, as the workshop progressed I could tell that the topic was exciting their interest. The facilitator took us through some examples of instances of homophobia in men’s sports – most notably Blue Jays player Yunel Escobar’s anti-gay slur written on his eye black – as well as acknowledging that derogatory terms used against gay men are often synonymous with slurs that have been used to put down women.

During the discussion period one of the young women offered that rejection of homophobia is much easier to embrace when one knows a gay person. She admitted to saying things like “that’s so gay” before two of her close cousins ‘came out.’ I thought this the perfect opportunity to tease out some of the issues for this young woman who initially seemed entirely bored by the subject. I said to her that surely she has women in her life that she is close with; she’s a woman herself. Homophobia against men is rooted in a devaluation or hatred, even, of what we understand to be feminine traits: sensitive, physically weak, superficial, materialistic etc. So, you’re a “fag” and therefore not a ‘real man’ because you’re behaving like a ‘woman’ which is the ultimate insult for a boy or man. This is entirely related to society’s devaluation of women. She gave me a blank stare. I looked to the facilitator for help and when it didn’t arrive I tried to get him to talk about the significance of Escobar’s defenders who said that the Spanish slur written under his eyes actually translated to “pussy” not “faggot” and therefore was obviously more acceptable. He acknowledged that that was interesting but could not help me break down the significance for the young woman. Too bad Hudson Taylor wasn’t there.

I have thought about that moment a lot and what it says about how we’ve come to understand sexism in contemporary times. It’s important to stop using anti-gay slurs in the fight to end homophobia but if we’re unwilling to talk about why gay men so wholly offend the status quo, especially in a uber masculine environment like men’s professional sport, then we’re at best simply treating the symptoms instead of the cause. The resultant disease is that sexism remains unscrutinized, difficult to challenge, and largely invisible.

Theory 3: The sex binary myth has been replaced by ‘mutant women’ myth

Sport is organized around the celebration of masculinity (i.e. traits we socially prescribe to men). Due to this, female athletes occupy an uncomfortable social space because their very existence confuses traditional notions of femininity and masculinity.  What this means is that the treatment of female athletes is a useful barometer for the status of women in society as a whole.

As elite female athletes continue to push the gender expectations the last several years has seen a pushback against this challenging of the status quo. Only this time around the conversation has changed.

Last summer I interviewed sport scholar Sandy Wells about recent developments in the language around gender in sport and continued debates in sport about sex testing. An important fight in feminism has been pointing out that the sex binary is a myth. To quote the linked article by Melissa McEwan, “Every time one sex has assigned to it a particular trait or behavior or emotion, then the other is assigned its opposite, or merely its absence—and a failure to demonstrate its opposite or absence, as prescribed by one’s own gender, thus results in a deviation of which our gender-obsessed, binary-obsessed, gender role-enforcing patriarchy will not approve.” Fortunately, as mentioned, female athletes by mere existence have busted many of these binaries. This makes me think of people like Kathrine Switzer (first woman to run the Boston Marathon) whose own track coach didn’t believe women had the physiological capability to run a marathon until she proved him wrong one day at practice.

When controversy exploded over the gender/sex of South African athlete Castor Semenya, Sandy Wells analyzed reactions on a track and field listserv on which she is a subscriber. She made some interesting observations. She noted that, “people were very knowledgeable about biological myths about the sex binary.” So, unlike more sensationalist headlines concluding that Semenya must be a “man” because she competed so well, these track experts believe that her biology merely gives her an ‘unfair’ advantage over other women (this accusation was thrown on basketball player Brittney Griner more recently – read linked post to see why I believe it’s no coincidence that these two high profile cases were centred around women of colour). This unfair advantage being her “abnormal” testosterone levels. As Sandy Wells points out, this is no less sexist as “the result is that women are still compared against a standard of athleticism that is defined always as being outside of their capacity.”

In other words, the dialogue, in the institution of sport (Wells noted these conversations in the IOC level as well), has changed from blatant refusal to believe that any woman could compete at a high level at all (and therefore must be a man if they actually did) to a proposed desire to ‘protect’ female athletes from abnormal outliers that make the playing field “unfair.” Sandy Wells reiterates why the latter is still problematic by explaining that the demand for anatomically and hormonally equivalence in sport is only demanded in women’s sport because “men who play sports are just exhibiting maleness.” Standing at 7 ft 6 inches, Yao Ming’s hasn’t been barred from basketball in order to level the playing field. He is just using his ‘natural’ characteristics to his advantage as is expected from any male athlete.

Theory 4: Sex segregation in sport cements notion that women are worse than men at sport

Dividing sport based on sex relies on a lot of assumptions on sex differences in performance. It seems like a useful marker because it is believed that men are generally better than women in sport. I can’t think of any other institution where blatant proclamations of women’s inferiority are taken so wholly for granted.

Despite this ingrained sense of female inferiority, progressive sport experts have been questioning the usefulness of sex segregation for years. As early as 1985, Bruce Kidd (former Olympian and current University of Toronto professor) was reported to have said that, “there are little or no physiological reasons to exclude women from participating with men in most sports. Given the same training, time and resources women could learn to play most sports as well as men.” In 1988, after battling for 3 years in court, young Justine Blainey won the right to play in the boy’s Metro Toronto Hockey League. In a Globe and Mail article from 1993, sport journalist Laura Robinson explains that Blainey’s win, unfortunatlely, has not been enough to change attitudes. She ends the article by writing: “1947, Jackie Robinson bravely challenged the colour barrier in sports. Today it would be unthinkable to segregate people by race in sports. Isn’t it time we took the same attitude toward segregation by sex?”

Some of you may be thinking, well, race is different. We know that the fastest man is faster than the fastest woman; the strongest weight lifting man is stronger than the strongest weight lifting woman etc. To begin, these kinds of stats are pulled from a tiny minority of the all ready tiny minority of elite competitors based in a world that does not make it easy for women to live and train solely as an athlete. Additionally, most sex segregated sports have stats that are not so easily comparable. Rules in women’s sports tend to be ‘lighter’ than men’s (e.g. best of 3 sets in women’s tennis vs. best of 5 sets in men’s). Even so, any results we have deemed comparable do not prove that this will be the way things are forever or that these differences are based solely on inherent ‘man genetics’ and not cultural expectations.

Cordelia Fin writes about how sensitive our mind and performance is to the social environment in her illuminating book Delusions of Gender. Through simple manipulations of social context social psychologists are disproving many long held beliefs on gender differences of cognition and at the same time showing the power of ingrained stereotypes. Historically, mental rotation performance – a type of test linked to spatial intelligence – has been the most consistently measured aspect of cognition that invokes male superiority. Higher levels of testosterone in boys and men have been a popular explanation for the results. This 2010 study in Physiological Science journal supported this theory by hypothesizing that female twins from opposite-sex pairs will “show a large and robust male advantage, such as the mental rotation task” due to their prenatal testosterone exposure. So how big exactly is this large and robust male advantage? In her book Fin points out several social cues that adjusted these results. The most staggering involved 3 groups; the first was told that men perform better in this test, “probably for genetic reasons,” the control group was given no information about gender and the last group was told the blatant lie that women perform better in this test. In the first two groups the men outperformed women in the usual way but the last group, the “women are better” group, the women performed just as well as the men.

This does not prove exactly what biology is behind success in the mental rotation performance but it does prove that our social expectations, especially when triggered, appear to greatly affect performance. If our social expectations are strong enough to change actual performance then it’s a safe assumption that dividing all sports by sex (as a way to mark general skill level) will reinforce the societal expectation that women’s sports are lower status.

Anybody remember this poster?

Writers and scholars Eileen McDonagh and Laura Pannano explore the sex segregation issue more deeply in their book Playing with the Boys: Why Separate is Not Equal in Sport. They do a convincing job of explaining why these assumptions create a near impenetrable cycle, “…the initial assumption that women are inferior to men in sports gets institutionalized not only by the way sports is coercively organized on a sex-segregated principle, including sex segregation in the monetary rewards for playing sports, but also in the way these principles reproduce the initial assumption of women’s inferiority in the first place.” That’s a bit of a mouth full but it explains the catch-22 of “little demand for women’s sports = low monetary investment/low monetary investment confirms women’s sports as low-grade = little demand” reinforced by the assumptions for dividing sexes in the first place.

I do not have room in this piece to discuss the various forms and ramifications of taking away the sex dividing line in sport (e.g religious requirements, maintenance of safe trans/women’s/girl’s only spaces etc). I do not think any feminist minded sport enthusiast is advocating to do away with this division in every circumstance. Women/trans sport spaces will remain important fixtures in our communities as will discussions led by Muslim feminists on Right To Wear campaigns. Conversations on how to change the sport institution to be more fair and equitable have been going on for years and what better time to bring them to the forefront than in the post-Year of Women’s Sports era.

No Comments | Comment on This Post

‘Big Babe Tennis’ and the Pitfalls of Liberal Feminism

Originally posted at Left Hook: A Critical Review of Sport and Society 

Taking in coverage of women’s professional tennis is a little bit like watching “Sex and the City” for a feminist.  On the one hand, there are moments worth celebrating.  Think of Samantha calling out a prospective employer for denying her a job opportunity because, years ago, she slept with one of his employees, saying: “if I was a guy, you would have shaken my hand, bought me a scotch, and given me a key to an office.” A statement like that would be virtually inconceivable in prime time television before the show.  These moments are almost - but not quite - good enough to forgive its favouring of white, upper class, materialistic, and heterosexual culture as the main ambition for independent women.

Similar to “Sex and the City,” women’s professional tennis also has its feminist celebratory moments. The history of women’s tennis is enriched with stories of women fighting and succeeding to be treated as respected elite athletes. The most prominent story is of the Original 9, who recently reunited, breaking away from the United States Lawn Tennis Association (USLTA) and boycotting a 1970 tournament that offered a women’s purse at an eighth less than the men’s final prize. The USLTA responded by suspending the 9 women from all their tournaments. The two Australians in the group received suspensions from their tennis association and were refused entry to all tournaments in their home country.Instead of submitting to pressure the 9 women started their own tour, with symbolic $1 contracts, which eventually led the course to a USLTA sanctioned women’s tour and the creation of the Women’s Tennis Association. Today, women have pay equity in all four Grand Slam events. An astounding achievement considering the income disparity in all other sports (let alone across the planet in all aspects of society).

I soaked in this history while watching the women’s finals at the French Open this past week with my 92 year old tennis-obsessed Oma. I was delighting over unparalleled achievements in women’s sports: equal prize money, professional and dynamic coverage, individual player promotion (many of these women are household names) and full stands. What first got me to pause was when the camera panned over to the stands and showed Monica Seles taking in the game. Seles, a former world number 1 player, was to be presenting the trophy at the end of the match. What gave me pause was that she was so done up I could barely recognize her. I don’t want that to be misread as a personal criticism but it did bring me back to my “Sex and the City” woes.  That much of contemporary women’s “success” is only celebrated if it fits within a narrow image of feminity and consumerist goals.  This was not the tennis of Billie Jean King’s era.

Mary Carillo, the only woman commentator during the women’s final game at the French Open (though she barely spoke), is famous for coiningthe term “Big Babe Tennis.” This is the dominant modern style of women’s tennis, encapsulated by the Williams’ sisters, which favours strong, powerful women delivering strong and powerful shots. This is in itself is an exciting development as former champion Martina Navratilova has said, “These girls have no fear. They’re positive, they hit out on every shot, they don’t play scared. I love to see that. It’s ‘Big Babe Tennis.’ “

What’s less exciting is calling a group of some of the most impressive athletes in the world “babes.” Imagine “Super Stud Hockey” or “Pretty BoyBasketball.” It takes any attention away from athleticism and focuses it on physical and sexual appearance. What is worse, this is no isolated event – it happens all the time in women’s sports.  It functions as a way to put women athletes ‘back in their place,’ that is, in an inferior gendered status by way of existing predominantly as a sexual object for men.  The fact that, in this particular case, the terminology was created and spread by women in tennis is even more notable as it points to the insidious nature of this sexist culture.  The more successful the female athlete becomes, the more pressure she faces to appear non-threatening by emphasising her “feminine” traits, such as sexual availability or emotional vulnerability. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen sport news coverage favour photos of female athletes crying after a win over fist pumps in the air.

Tennis, with its lack of equipment and individual focus, is an easy product for marketers and management teams to vision a female player in line with society’s demand for the “feminine” female athlete. The marketing surrounding the Williams sisters is symbolic of these pressures.  Not only are they occupying a revolutionary space by merely being women who are elite level athletes they also have to face additional judgments reserved in our racist society for women of colour.  Our notion of womanhood is still based on white ideals so while all female athletes bend gender expectations, women athletes of colour face a disproportionate amount of blunt accusations accusing them of being “men in disguise.”  Most recently we can look at the cases of Britney Griner and Castor Semenya to see this patriarchal racism in fruition.  How to combat these prejudices while maintaining an acceptable public image?  Serena Williams’ marketing team had her do a video game commercial that was so pornographic that it had to be pulled from TV.

Considering these realities of our time, I was still able to see a light at the end of the tunnel as I watched Maria Sharapova celebrate her French Open final win.  It was sparked from an unexpected source: John McEnroe.  McEnroe is a former tennis champion himself, though he was most famous for his fiery temper on court.  He has also said some very uninspiring (not to mentioned untruthful) things about women’s tennis in the past.  Men like McEnroe are often given expert status over women’s sports.  But, these men have had to face women like the Original 9 who continue to inspire tennis players and female athletes alike to demand the respect they deserve.  And it’s working.  As I listened to the live commentary during the trophy ceremony, McEnroe couldn’t help but keep remarking that Sharapova is a “real tennis player.” He didn’t use gendered language because he was obviously so impressed with her tennis skills as an athlete that he wanted to display his respect for one of the best players in the world.  If he is starting to wake up then I have some hope for the rest of our society for the treatment of our female athletes.

Follow Ellie Gordon-Moershel: @EllieGordonMoe

5 Comments | Comment on This Post

How a female athlete’s body became a battleground for gender assumptions (again).

For those of you who follow women’s basketball you will have already heard of Brittney Griner. Though only 21 she has been making waves the past few years most recently having received Associate Press’ Player of the Year and the Most Outstanding Player of the Final Four. Like many elite level athletes Griner possesses some unusual physical traits (think swimmer Micheal Phelps with his wingspan as long as 26 monarch butterflies lined up in a row…or more simply, 6’7”). Standing 6’8″ tall, Griner wears a men’s US size 17 shoes.

The use of the word “unusual” over “unnatural” is an important distinction and kind of the crux of what this blog post will be about. I recently read The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle by Avi. It’s a young adult historical fiction novel about a upper class white girl who finds herself as the only female passenger on a voyage across the Atlantic in the 1800s. As she transitions into a competent member of the crew the antagonist Captain Jaggery attempts to squander any solidarity she builds with the other crew members. In a particularly memorable scene Jaggery accuses Charlotte of a crime using an argument about her “unnaturalness”:

“Doing her part like we all was,” the captain echoed in a mocking tone. “Mr. Barlow, you are not young. In all your years have you ever seen, ever heard of a girl who took up crew’s work?”
“No sir, I never did.”
“So, then, is it not unusual?”
“I suppose.”
“You suppose. Might you say, unnatural?”
“That’s not fair!” I cried out. “Unusual and unnatural are not the same!”

The captain goes on to say that due to Charlotte’s obvious “unnaturalness” it was the duty of the crew, of the men, to “protect the natural order of the world” by getting rid of her.

Bringing this back to Brittney Griner (…and Caster Semenya and all the other female athletes that have been scrutinized for their “unnaturalness”) her most recent splash in the news was about her decision to remove herself from consideration for inclusion in the London 2012 Olympics. She cited school obligations and family health issues as her main reasons. What caught my eye in this Women Talk Sports article was the author stating, “I saw pokes and jokes about the fact that she’s afraid of genetic testing and that’s why she doesn’t want to play for the USA, because she’s actually a man.” I thought, oh shit, here we go again. So I searched “Brittney Griner+gender” to see what the media and sports pundits had been saying.

At the beginning of April after Griner’s team won the Women’s NCAA Championship game the opposing coach (a woman) said of her after the game, “I think she’s one of a kind. I think she’s like a guy playing with women.” Apparently referring to Griner’s gender was not a new thing at this point but this coach’s comment is important because it led to many articles devoted to Griner’s gender appearance. The articles ‘defending’ Griner are what prompted me to write this blog. Save for this excellent piece at Fit and Feminist I was sorely disappointed and surprised given the excellent progressive articles written about Caster Semenya and the shit show around her “gender testing.” The author of the CBS article titled Questioning Griner’s gender? Please, just shut up and go away is rightly very angered by the scrutiny of Griner’s gender but his conclusion is, “If you think Brittney Griner is a freak, or not a woman, or something other than what she purports to be, either bring proof or shut up. And since you don’t have proof, you’re really left with Option B.” Similar is the attitude behind this Washington Post article titled Brittney Griner’s gender? Shame on those who even ask the question which starts her defense by remarking that Griner didn’t “ask for” a deep voice and size 17 feet. I’m happy that these mainstream journalists are condemning offensive comments about Griner but the conversation is severely lacking in an analysis of gender policing in sport and why this keeps happening to female athletes (especially non-white female athletes). This has nothing to do with the exceptionality of Griner and everything to do with patriarchy and racism as played out through the institution of sport.

The “institution of sport”― this is something that Dr. Ian Richie from Brock University emphasised while I was interviewing him about the history of sex testing in international sport. He started off the interview with saying, “The reason I think sex testing is so interesting is because it really provides a lens into the institution of sport. And, we have to remember that sport is an institution, a social institution created by human beings, it’s not grown out of the natural earth so to speak. There’s no any one way that sport has to be done…sport as an institution was created around gender lines and assumptions about gender.”

Richie went on to remind us that this resulted in sport being raised out of the celebration of masculinity. Masculinity being socially understood as synonymous with strength, speed and all other manner of athletic prowess. This is why it’s foundation shattering to have elite female athletes existing and why, Ritchie and others argue, sex testing―something so fundamentally at odds with human rights―is acceptable in the institution of sport and nowhere else.

This ideology of “natural” gender roles was furthered propped up by the institution of science during the 19th century . A most hilariously ridiculous example being the ‘research’ that found that bicycling would cause a woman’s uterus to implode – it being such an unnatural act. Science was not only interested in proving the naturalness of social gender roles but also white supremacy. When Jesse Owens won four gold medals at the 1936 Olympics in Hilter’s Germany he shook up racial assumptions. The response of science and society as neatly summed by PBS’ excellent documentary Race: The Power of An Illusion, “How could a society steeped in the science of racial inferiority reconcile itself to Owen’s four gold medals? By conceding innate athletic superiority to African Americans while denying them so-called civilized capacities.” i.e. black athletes were bigger and stronger since it wasn’t that long ago that they were living in a jungle running from animals.

“Experts” may not say such things out loud anymore but these are the assumptions that sport and our society were built on and it will certainly take more than a few decades to be rid of these deep seeded prejudices. Gender and race are not genetic and there’s nothing “natural” about society’s expectations of either. These systems of injustice are what need to be scrutinized and the institutions that keep these ideologies the norm through such behaviour as the International Olympic Committee’s refusal to completely abolish sex testing. Brittney Griner need not enter the conversation unless we’re remarking on her amazing slam dunks.

Follow Ellie Gordon-Moershel: @EllieGordonMoe

Comment section is no longer open on this post.
29 Comments | Comment on This Post

Know your enemy.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

(Thanks to our lovely web designer Anne Emberline we can now add audio players to our blogs.
I may just have to start every blog with a Rage clip.)

Not too long ago I attended one of the Occupy Toronto marches with my good friend who is currently attending grad school at the Munk School for Global Affairs at U of Toronto.  When she remembered she was wearing a backpack sporting an emblem of the program we speculated at how long it would be before someone made a remark.  Peter Munk, the $50.9 million dollar funding namesake of the school, is pretty much the epitome of the 1%.   He is the chairman and founder of the mining company Barrick Gold – the world’s largest gold mining corporation. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the company has a shady record when it comes to human rights and environmental impacts. Sure enough two middle-aged women came up to my friend during the march and asked her if she knew about Peter Munk’s legacy. After a polite disagreement on whether Munk has any sway over course content the women walked on ahead. This in itself is not what was significant ― certainly we need to question massive corporate and private donations to our education centres.  What was significant is that as the women walked away we noticed that one of them was wearing red Olympic mittens.

Scarier to me than Peter Munk is the International Olympic Committee. Scarier still is that these women, devoted to their anti-corporate politics, were advertising for possibly the biggest of them all. The IOC is able to do this because it has a massive bullet proof get-out-of-jail-free card due to the marketing genius of the ‘purity of sport.’ That being said this isn’t the first time The F Word (or others) have remarked on the Olympics immunity to critique:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

(A short clip from a June ’11 show - mostly included to hear me flub both a common saying and the name of a popular Olympic mascot)

I owe much of my exposure to the horrendous account of IOC history to two sport journalists: Laura Robinson and Dave Zirin. Zirin’s book Welcome To The Terrordome: the pain, politics, and promise of sports chronicles some of the major players in IOC. Here you can learn the twisted tale of Avery “Slavery” Brundage (president of the IOC from 1952-1972). When he was president of the US Olympic Committee he was instrumental in ensuring that the US did not boycott the 1936 Olympics in then Nazi Germany. Zirin reports that Brundage was even, “expelled from the right-wing anti-World War II America First Committee because of his endless love of all things Hitler.”

Remember this photo?

John Carlos, Tommie Smith, and Australian sprinter Peter Norman were supporters of the Olympic Project for Human Rights―a group rightfully concerned about racism in sport and the inclusion of apartheid South Africa in 1968 Olympics in Mexico (the inclusion that Brundage strongly advocated for). Zirin reports that the African-American athletes actually brought the black gloves in case they were forced to shake hands with Brundage at the medaling ceremony.

Maybe Brundage is just a gargantuan bad apple in the basket? Far from it as you can see in Laura Robinson’s enlightening article published last year. Since this is a blog post and not an endless essay I’ll give you a point form summary of some of the people we’re talking about:

- Juan Antonio Samaranch (president of the IOC from 1980 to 2001) → proud supporter of Spain’s fascist dictator Francisco Franco.

- General Lassana Palenfo (current member of the IOC Women and Sport Commission) → Former head of Ivory Coast’s PC Crise—or Crisis Patrol—which “was a kind of death squad like the Gestapo.”He was sprung from Ivory Coast prison in 2000 by an envoy sent by the IOC.

- Major General Francis Nyangweso (once member of IOC Commission for Culture and Olympic Education) → former military commander under Idi Amin in Uganda

- Sepp Blatter (IOC member since 1999 – current president of FIFA) → To quote a recent episode of the satirical podcast The Bugle, “We have lost some of the most excentric leaders around this year—Gaddafi, Berlusconi, Osama Bin Laden—but it’s easy not to miss any of them when they’re all embodied in Sepp Blatter.”

- Dick Pound (yes, that’s his real name). Member of the IOC since 1978. → This canuck might be a more familiar name. On the one hand he is credited to be a top advocate in ending doping in the Games. On the other hand you may remember his statement that Canada was a land inhabited by “savages” 400 years ago. The statement that Margaret Wente was quick to defend. Pound has also played an integral role in IOC’s brilliantly manipulative marketing strategies. He first came to my attention during the debates on whether women’s ski jumping should be allowed in the Vancouver 2010 Olympics.  Click below to hear Laura Robinson summarizing the ski jumping case.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Basically what this case demonstrated (again) is that the IOC has unlimited control over anything Olympic related. Doesn’t matter if their decision directly conflicts with the equality laws of the host country. Dick Pound expresses this arbitrarily exercised power during an interview in response to the lawsuit brought by the women ski jumpers, “The IOC in a very predictable human reaction might say, oh yeah, I remember them, they’re the ones that embarrassed us and caused a lot of trouble in Vancouver. Maybe they should wait another 4 years or 8 years or whatever it may be.”

As Laura Robinson said in this Toronto Star article: “There is no rhyme or reason for any of this. Powerful men who answer to no one decide whether women can participate.”

So, when I heard that pole dancing—excuse me—vertical dancing is being heavily petitioned to get into the 2012 Olympics I didn’t automatically presume that it would never happen due to “official” IOC selection criteria. They have some reasonable criteria such as having a strong base of athletes at the international level. Albeit criteria that is only used when it serves the IOC’s interest.

That interest is money and power and if pole dancing fits into that scenario than you better believe the IOC will find a way to justify its inclusion. And, what if the International Amateur Boxing Association does order its female boxers to wear skirts during competition? Think the IOC would jump in and crush such an obviously sexist rule? Or would they just sit back and smile. Okay, maybe not all of them – after all there are 18 women members out of 112.

Meanwhile the IOC solidifies its international facade of peacekeeper and bringer of joy and love and happiness by co-hosting events such as the International Forum on Sport, Peace and Development with the United Nations.

This isn’t even mentioning environmental impacts of the Games (except luge tracks…they are super practical…every country should have one) or the disgusting legacy of ‘sex testing.’

All I’m saying, for the love of sport (and I have big love for sport), that we keep talking about this. A lot. Because I don’t want to continue to see something I love be manipulated for the supreme authority of a few.

4 Comments | Comment on This Post

Why I won’t be watching the Stanley cup finals.

I love hockey. One of the things I miss most from Ontario, now that I live in Vancouver, is outdoor ice rinks. Everyone has that one activity they love so much that they can’t remember how much time has passed while doing it. Outdoor shinny is that for me. What has also struck me about this type of hockey is that when I have played with guys I often don’t have to go through the usual frustrations of not being passed the puck and all that other crap that comes with being a female athlete. There’s something about the informal nature of shinny that can momentarily escape gender roles.

I should be an obvious candidate to be an NHL fan – I’ve got the Canadian hockey love! And the nonsensical Canadian hockey nostalgia (my parents are non-skating Americans). Now more than ever I want to be because my current home is location for the unstoppable Vancouver Canucks. During the playoff games the streets (and anywhere without a tv) are empty. Which is actually nice for me because it means more ice time if my hockey game falls on the same night.

So, what’s my beef? Mainly the money, power, and violence.

I saw this episode of the Simpsons recently in which Mr. Burns acquires a basketball team and in an effort to attract an audience he proposes, much to Lisa’s protests of course, that the city builds a huge and luxurious stadium. Mr. Burns gets the vote at city hall and they go ahead with the building. On the opening night Burns shouts over the load speaker: “Welcome to the American Dream: A billionaire using public funds to construct a private playground for the rich and powerful!” The crowd cheers in response.

Watching that made me laugh really hard…and then sigh.

According to Dave Zirin, (awesome political/sport commentator/feminist ally) over 30 billion dollars have been spent since 1990 (not including tax breaks) on stadiums in the States (I’m sure it’s something less but proportionally disgraceful in Canada).  Zirin aptly describes this process as socializing debt and privatizing profit.  The cost of the new roof to BC Place in addition to the original amount to build the stadium puts the overall cost at $835 Million. That makes BC Place the 13th most costly venue IN THE WORLD.

And who can afford to bring their family to a Canucks game? Using the average ticket price for the 09/10 season a family of 4 would have to spend $250 on tickets alone (for my hometown of Toronto: $470 – if you can believe it). And, that’s if you plan to not buy a single thing to eat or drink at the stadium.   For an alternative check out the interesting story of the Green Bay Packers – the only publicly owned, not-for-profit professional sports team in the US (in Canada the Kitchener Rangers of the OHL are publicly owned).

From a feminist angle what really gets my goat about the absurd amount of public money spent on these venues is that women are not even allowed to play in them. (yes, yes except for the odd championship that may be in town). They are overpriced man tents. So, here’s where the power comes in. Rich men own the man teams who then sell the tickets to the rich men. Women are sometimes are welcome…as cheerleaders. I worked a season at the Air Canada Centre in Toronto running beer to the platinum section and I had many opportunities to see the treatment of the cheerleaders at Raptors games.  I also attended many Argo games as a teenager and I don’t think I ever heard the following commentary coming out of one of my fellow fans “Oh gee, that cradle catch requires a staggering degree of athletic prowess” unless that’s what “show us your tits” actually means.

Anyone who has been around professional sport leagues know that it cultivates a macho jock beef cake environment (I’m pretty sure that’s the academic term).  To date, there is not one “out” gay major professional sport athlete in North America (there are some that came out after they retired).  This says a lot about the culture. Namely, that any sign of weakness (i.e. “femininity,” because you know gay guys aren’t real men) is not accepted.  There is long held belief, largely based on proof and experience, that this kind of jock culture cultivates an environment that incites violence against women. Not only are the althletes themselves more likely to physically abuse women than the average male but the rates of domestic violence in home increases during sporting events, especially when the home team loses.  Not to mention the correlation between major sporting events and the rise in sex trafficking.

So, I won’t hate on you for watching the Canucks but this is a little flavour of why I find it so hard to stomach.  (This, and more uninteresting reasons like it would cut into my dystopian novel reading and Fringe watching)

I think it’s about time professional sports stops being the only thing many progressive people are not willing to critique.  Looking critically at something you love doesn’t mean you love it any less. Sport can be such a powerful tool for positive social change; it deserves sincere examination.

6 Comments | Comment on This Post

Blog Categories


The purpose of the blog is to create dialogue and debate around current issues related to women, feminism, and social justice.
We enjoy active participation in the blog, however, we reserve the discretion to remove any comments that are threatening or promote hate speech.

Search This Blog:

Site by Anne Emberline