In her comments on a post below, Kelly asks why I haven’t posted more on the performance of women in the Olympic games. Chastened, I haste to post on the subject.
Over at XX blog, a simple question is asked:
Why are American women kicking ass at the Olympics? The answer is pretty simple: Title IX.
Well, there’s more to it than that, of course (the Chinese women have been terrific without Title IX) but the women at XX are on to a fairly important point. In the thirty-two years since the arrival of Title IX (click here for a brief history of it and the origin of its name), we have seen a veritable revolution in terms of women’s participation in sports at all levels of society, from elementary schools to professional leagues.
What troubles me about the coverage of American women athletes in the Olympic games is fairly obvious: I’ve seen far more coverage of women’s gymnastics and women’s beach volleyball than of anything else. The former sport, for all its aesthetic appeal, presents an intensely traditional vision of one type of woman: the petite pubescent pixie. I am in awe of the amount of skill and effort it takes to be a gymnast, and I honor the artistry of these girls. (Most are girls, after all; with the exception of Svetlana Khorkina of Russia, most of the major competitors this year were under 18). But I wonder if we respond so well to gymnasts because they are so small and unthreatening. Female gymnasts are physically strong without being intimidating; a man can still pick one up easily in his arms. Despite their prowess, there is still something fragile about these athletes, even if that fragility is as much emotional as physical. I think American culture is very, very comfortable with delicate, pretty, fragile, adolescent women. Too comfortable.
Beach volleyball, on the other hand, is a sport played by older women, relatively speaking, in their twenties and thirties. Beach volleyball players are surely magnificent athletes. But it would be be absurd to pretend that the bikinis these women wear aren’t a significant part of the appeal. I can’t say the bikinis appear very functional. After every play where a woman ends up diving into the sand, she gets up tugging and adjusting either her top or her bottom, usually because the latter has hiked up her backside. (The camera angles leave one in little doubt about this). In other words, there’s a lot of flesh on display. Am I saying that a woman cannot be both sexy and a respected competitor? Of course not. But I am grieved by the fact that our broadcasters choose to focus far more heavily on the sexiness than on the athleticism.
Similarly, I’m a huge fan of women’s softball. Next to track and field, it’s my favorite women’s sport at the Olympics. This goes back to when I was first a TA at UCLA, in 1991. In the very first class I taught (Classics 20, an intro to Roman Civilization course), I had two softball players as students. At the time, UCLA was the three-time defending national champion. During the quarter, these two women had to take time off to go and play at the College World Series in Oklahoma City. Because I knew them, I was hooked. I went to several softball games while in grad school, and got to know a few more of those early 1990s Bruin players. So obviously, I paid a lot of attention to this year’s gold-medal winning USA softball team.
But what bothered me was the fact that the promotional materials and the cameras on the field seemed to focus on one player alone: Jennie Finch, the statuesque blonde pitcher from the University of Arizona. (Here’s her website). Finch is a fine pitcher, but she’s not the star of the US women’s team. The hero, this year and in years past, was Lisa Fernandez (a UCLA alumna). Fernandez went 4-0 in these Olympics, while Finch only pitched one game (which she won). Lisa’s website is here. Go ahead, visit both sites. Look at pictures of both women. Maybe it’s the fact that I met Lisa Fernandez when she played for the Bruins, but I’m annoyed that because she isn’t a beauty like Jennie Finch, she isn’t recognized as the clear star of the team.
Overall, let me say that I have enjoyed these Games immensely (and am still waiting eagerly to see how my hero Paula Radcliffe does in the 10,000 meters, coming up within the next hour). But even as I salute the positive strides women have made in American sports in recent years, I am also keenly aware we have a long, long way to go.
about gymnastics:
ever looked at the disciplines – they’re didfferent for the sexes. Only floor exercise is the same.
Now on a closer look, all the men’s parts, you need to be strong for; all the women’s gymnastics you need to be flexible for.
Historically, if you want to only find out who is THE one best person in the world, this makes sense. Now, things have changed: firstly, it is generally accepted that men’s and women’s olympics are parallel and separate. Nobody will go over to a female gold medalist in running or weightlifting and say to her “you may have the best women’s score, but think about all those men who did better than you”.
Secondly, people have discovered that children – are even more flexible than women.
They’ve now put an age limit in place (16 years); the new elite is from China and measures 1m30 by 35 kg at 17 years.
But perhaps they should just add a new discipline to women’s gymnastics, one that calls on body strength instead of flexibility – as with the men. This would allow the slightly older and stronger athletes to make a better overall score. But you’d have to do away with medals per discipline, too, for that to work.
Anyway, just a thought.
Floor exercises call for body strength.