Feminism

DC shakeup. No, not that DC. I refer here to DC Comics, which now has a new name—DC Entertainment—and a new president. This overhaul by parent company Warner Bros. bodes well for a forthcoming Wonder Woman film. Another sign that things are looking up for the Amazon: she now has her own forum at Comic Book Resources.

The ugly paradox. Caster Semenya's story, though regrettable, has at least given rise to worthwhile, occasionally enlightened, media commentary. Among the best I've seen is "Women in sports: The ugly paradox," a piece that throws into relief what is the nub of the story, and the bane of all female athletes: "They say the Semenya case shows that an old, ugly paradox is alive and well in women's sport: The same giant quadriceps and bulky shoulders that can clinch championships make athletes look 'unfeminine' in the eyes of the world. And that can be a difficult reality for many women."

Nasty as it was, Serena's tantrum at the US Open isn't as troubling as what she says about her arms in an interview for People: "I think they're too muscular. They're too thick," tennis champion Serena Williams said of her ripped arms in an Aug. 27 interview with People Magazine. "I know that toned arms are in now. Look at Michelle Obama. ... I'm like, 'keep wearing strapless dresses!' But I don't like mine."

Serena's is merely a representative case. The problem is in fact societal. That Serena sees her muscular physique as something better shunned isn't unusual. But when one of the world's most accomplished female athletes, ever, says as much in public, the fallacy is perpetuated—given life anew to burden the next generation of female athletes.

Sad it is to think that Serena apparently cannot reconcile her muscles with the women's fineries she sells on HSN; the same muscles, to continue the paradox theme, that helped make her a famous athlete, famous enough to have her own line of merchandise to peddle on a shopping network.

We have been getting an education of late; a new understanding, for some at least, of gender's equivocalness. Unfortunately, this has all come at the expense of Caster Semenya: a woman who is guilty of nothing (unless you consider running too fast a crime) and whose life has now been altered, lastingly, and probably not to the better.

I'll make clear first that nothing has been confirmed. The reporting that Semenya is a "hermaphrodite" originates with two Australian papers quoting an unnamed source. Not all that convincing to my mind, a view seconded by an IAAF spokesperson: "Davies said the newspaper's report 'should be treated with caution.'"

Moreover, calling her a "hermaphrodite," even if the report is true, is neither appropriate nor correct. (Intersexed is the generally accepted term.) Assuming the report is accurate, again a leap right now, Semenya most likely has androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS). Perhaps a report, like the AP's, written without a sensationalist bent might inform us better. The AP report instead gives an objective and fact-oriented, not to mention a rather more compassionate, outline of the condition Semenya might have. Also, a post at ScienceBlogs explains why the obsessive concern about "unfair" athletic advantage in such cases is a mere bugaboo.

Last, something else in the Daily Telegraph piece that is disturbing: "While the IAAF are treating the Semenya case as a health matter, with her eligibility to compete in women's athletics very much a secondary issue, the same South African politicians who denied AIDS was a problem in their country are now blindly standing behind their new queen of the track."

Really? All along the IAAF has been concerned solely with Semenya's health? That's the reason for the "gender verification" tests in the first place—her health? Never mind, too, that the IAAF could easily have better protected her privacy through all this.

And while I do not normally defend politicians, in this instance, i.e. Semenya's rights and privacy, I would say the South African politicians have it about right. That they are guilty of past wrongs—as all politicians are, apparently even the Australian variety—I have no doubt, but in this matter they have taken the high ground. (Albeit, of course, that ground which is also most politically advantageous for them.)

Another "help wanted" post seemed fitting right before Labor Day weekend; this one instigated by Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi's return to the headlines. Besides the many horrid things one inevitably associates with such a despot, his return to the spotlight also brings to mind his elite female corps of bodyguards.

I do not regard the man they protect, but I do admire these women greatly. Anyone thinking his female bodyguards are mere ornaments for the dictator thinks incorrectly. They have saved their charge's paltry hide more than once, sometimes sacrificing their life to do so.

I haven't yet seen Rania Ajami's documentary Shadows of a Leader: Qaddafi's Female Bodyguards, but I plan to do so soon. Meanwhile, we can expect glimpses of these exceptional women when they accompany Qaddafi on his trip to New York later this month.