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 19^th 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.

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.

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.

It’s like a headline from The Onion or some dystopian novel: “Nation to support women’s professional sports…if performed in panties.” For gosh golly sakes the league is even called the Lingerie Football League. And the team names? Temptation, Seduction, Fantasy, Desire…etc. We appear to have reached the point in which sexism is so tolerable in the sport realm that the powers that be (i.e. league/team owners and sport media) don’t even attempt to mask it anymore.

I first heard of the LFL over a year ago. I was very unimpressed but figured, wrongly, that the league would not expand further than a small handful of American teams. I thought, surely there is no substantial market of sports enthusiasts that would publicly support this porn/football hybrid.  Nearly naked women with close to model ‘perfect’ bodies playing a tackle sport on turf not only is degrading for the athletes but makes a mockery of a serious sport. It seemed too obvious to even blog about! However, the latest news is that Toronto, beloved city of my childhood, will be the first Canadian city to be “gifted” with an LFL team.  What the dealio?

Why sexual exploitation in women’s sports keeps happening:
- One of the age old power differences (perceived and real) between men and women is the superiority of physical strength in men
- Due to the above, elite female athletes consistently occupy a revolutionary space – they prove that women are strong, fast, agile and at times can match male athletes. In other words, they are constantly myth-busting the everlasting stereotype that women are the weaker sex.
- Yes, this stereotype is still wildly accepted. I could write an entire blog listing just my personal experiences on the subject and I’m an able bodied, athletic young woman.

So, in the answer to the question of why :
The easiest way to bring female athletes back to an inferior status is a big fat reminder that she’s a WOMAN before she’s an athlete. And what is a woman? someone who is emotional, a wife (of a man), a mother, a sex object.

This can manifest in subtle ways.  I did an undergraduate project on newspaper sport coverage of women’s sport a few years ago. What we discovered (besides the staggering lack of coverage of women’s sports) was that in almost every article featuring a female athlete the focus would be drawn to her “womanliness.” Examples: women athletes were far more likely to be photographed crying or have unnecessary mentions of their husbands, male coaches, or children.

Not so subtle ways would be the LFL. And, Serena Williams dressing up in a tiny leather outfit, gyrating to a moaning soundtrack, in order to sell a tennis video game (the video was actually banned from TV but you can watch it here – it’s so ridiculous).

What makes this issue so complex is the inevitable element of women “exploiting themselves.” The LFL players will argue that the league is empowering because they are real athletes that can be tough on the field – in addition to being sexy. Serena Williams, herself, chose to wear a pink lycra cat suit to tennis practice. I know that’s a favourite tennis outfit in my wardrobe.  There are countless more examples.

I just wanted to wrap this up with a note on marketing.  A good friend of mine reminded me the other day that marketers don’t just respond to the interests of the public; they create them. The most widespread argument against the development and support of women’s professional sports is that it is just not as interesting as men’s sports (unless the athletes are models in underwear).  When there is either no coverage of women’s sports or TONS of coverage of Maria Sharapova’s ass, the public will continue to not take it seriously.

Some positive movement to counterbalance the monolith of sexist sport coverage is the growing popularity of roller derby.  The best leagues (unfortunately some do have a resemblance to the LFL) encourage women of all sizes, backgrounds and ages to join. And, guess what!? The fans love it. Especially the female fans. Because most sports fans, at their core, want to see heart. Not thongs.