Women's Sports

Venus and Serena won their semifinal matches today, setting up another all-Williams Wimbledon final this Saturday. Serena had to battle to get past Elena Dementieva. In the next semifinal Venus made short work of Dinara Safina—the top seed, oddly enough—keeping alive her quest for another championship, viz. her third straight and sixth overall.

The essential thing that hasn't changed since last year: the sisters continue to be the dominant athletes on the women's tour.

One doesn't risk much by saying that the Carano-Cyborg fight to be held August 15 is important to the future of women's MMA. But neither is it mere hyperbole to say that this fight matters nearly as much to the future of all women's sport. Already there is plenty of evidence to support such a claim.

Among many firsts in this MMA bout will be women fighting five five-minute rounds (which, of course, the guys have been doing for some time). This has sparked debate, not unpredictably, as seen in an MMAjunkie.com opinion piece and its attendant comments. The issues so contentious there and elsewhere apply to other women's sports, and consequently expose difficulties facing all female athletes.

So we find that many of our hopes for the future of women's sport ride on the shoulders (or rather fists) of two very talented women. A great fight showing an abundance of heart and athleticism will go a long way toward silencing critics. I expect that is what we will see.

(As for who will be the winner? That's tougher to call.)

Today is the 37th anniversary of Title IX. I considered how best to mark the occasion and decided on something that would palpably show what Title IX helped emancipate: female strength; better still for this purpose, female strength in its most lethal form yet.

If you've seen Gina Carano in action, you undoubtedly have some sense of her otherworldly striking power; even her glancing blows can injure an opponent. Now, thanks to Sport Science, you can supplement your intuition with actual numbers. The finale—a chokehold applied to the show's host—is equally impressive, and rather frightening.

Alison Macleod says something in this interview that I find telling. When asked whether a female racer has an advantage or a disadvantage, Macleod mentions strength first: "Most girls are clearly disadvantaged when it comes to strength. Racing does require a lot of strength and lot of training so we have to work twice as hard as the guys do just to kind of keep that muscle up and everything, so we're at a little bit of a disadvantage."

So again we see how much strength training helps female athletes, even in sports where, at first glance, it wouldn't seem applicable, like auto racing.

I sometimes hear a female athlete say that she has cut back her weight training because it makes her look "too big," "too manly," etc. Moreover, often this is one of our exceptionally talented female athletes.

Strength is important (often decisive) in sport. Thus it is, to my mind, a pity that female athletes feel pressure, still in 2009, to conform to archaic ideals of femininity.

Perceptions are slowly changing, however. Society will grow up, eventually, but until then female athletes must carry on and lead the way.

Monday afternoon, softball star Danielle Lawrie pitched to members of the Seattle-area media, in an exhibition match of sorts. The media hacks did their best, but their efforts begot little other than embarrassment (theirs) and funny scenes in the following video:

Finally! the fight we've been waiting for. Mark August 15 on your calendar, and make sure you have Showtime by then.

With a dominating performance that won't soon be forgotten by softball fans, much less the Husky nation, Washington pitcher Danielle Lawrie took the Huskies to their first NCAA softball championship yesterday. In the process Lawrie also attested that her selection last week as USA Softball National Collegiate Player of the Year was indeed judicious.

Lawrie already draws comparisons to baseball legends of yesteryear (even Babe Ruth), her talent, grit, and work ethic all routinely cited. This is well and good, I suppose, but she embodies something more—the ascendant female athlete of the 21st century.

Earlier this year point guard Bilqis Abdul-Qaadir completed her dismantling of Rebecca Lobo's high-school scoring record, which had stood for 18 years. Much attention has understandably been given to the traditional Muslim attire Bilqis competes in—the modest dress required of both female and male adherents, though for some reason scrutiny falls mostly upon women, in athletics as elsewhere. But there is much else remarkable about this young athlete that shouldn't be overlooked; expect to hear more from her as a Memphis Tiger.

I'm looking forward to the long weekend, as most of you undoubtedly are. I'm keeping it simple, too, with just three things planned: reading, relaxing, and watching sports (namely, lacrosse and softball).

Shawn Johnson made the biggest news this week, so it seems fitting to end with her. In this clip, she talks to Jimmy Kimmel about her DWTS win:



Have a great weekend!

Note: Today you are blessed with a stay of sorts, a guest blogger. Enjoy!—Rob

In the past decade, women in sports jobs have increased their prominence in the sports world, slowly overtaking various obstacles to get where they are at today. Many sports teams have opened up to allow women’s teams to join national arenas, which has in turn led to a spotlight on women in sports. Establishing themselves in a male-dominated industry has taken years to accomplish, and even now, they are still not at the same level as men in the industry, but have made wide strides to achieve success.

Some sports arenas refuse to have women on their management team because they believe that unless you have played the sport, you cannot help to direct it. This normally only applies to a sport like football, in which few women have ever played for a team (other than a college intramural). Additionally, many teams do not feel comfortable hiring a woman in a high sports position, which has resulted in many discriminatory practices by many teams throughout the sports world. It has become ever more obvious that in order to reach a high spot in the sports world, women need to prove their capabilities much more so than men ever do. The International Olympic Committee has been one group which has taken great strides over the past years to overcome the discrimination against women in sports, accounting for increased women’s sports competitions and more jobs within the company itself that are available for women. These jobs allow women to participate in an international arena, wherein they can dispel myths that women are not suited for these types of jobs. The IOC in general is striving to equal the playing field for men and women within its games and administration to prove to the rest of the world that women and men can be equal within sports; according to March estimates, women now comprise 42 percent of their participants, which is a closer percentage than many sports teams around the country. Their administration also is closing in on equality, and they hope to portray this equality to the rest of the world.

Women’s sports teams (professional and college) were once almost solely run by women, but after the gender equality act, many men stepped into the field which has resulted in an off-balance even within women’s sports. It is up to women to pursue these career opportunities in order to bring the balance back into the sports world; by denying women to participate in football administrative jobs, sports teams are being hypocritical by allowing men to take higher positions in women’s volleyball teams (teams in which they have little experience overall). Women need to gain control over their own sports, and infiltrate into men’s sports teams as well. American sports are the hardest to break into because in order to get to a high career within the sports world, women have to overcome years of obstacles and menial jobs that men would not have had to do. By presenting more and more women to the sports stage, the playing field will have to become leveled, thus allowing more women to get into management positions for any type of sporting event.

This post was contributed by Heidi Taylor, who writes about sports management degree schools. She welcomes your feedback at HeidiLTaylor006 at gmail.com.

This was sent in the other day; a victory worth savoring, even if you don't live in Washington State:

Women’s Sports Foundation and ACLU Hail Signing of “Fair Play” Bill

Washington State Gov. Chris Gregoire signed into law the “Fair Play” bill (SB 5967) to prohibit sex discrimination in public community sports programs. The Women’s Sports Foundation and ACLU-WA worked for its passage as part of a partnership to promote equal treatment for women and girls in sports.

“Females who are forced to accept second-class treatment in sports are conditioned to accept second-class status in other areas as well. This bill will ensure that all athletes have a fair and equal chance to participate in community athletic programs,” said ACLU-WA executive director Kathleen Taylor.

“The bill goes a long way in assuring gender equality for those in community recreation programs in Washington. Equal opportunity and access are critical foundations in developing confident, healthy girls who will become the next generation of athletes, government, business, and community leaders,” said Karen Durkin, CEO of the Women’s Sports Foundation.

Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles was prime sponsor of the measure. Rep. Christine Rolfes sponsored a companion bill in the House.

“Girls who participate in sports have higher levels of confidence and self-esteem, lower levels of depression, and a better body image,” said Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle, who has taught classes on Title IX and gender and equity at the University of Washington since 1985. “We must do everything we can to level the playing field and ensure fair play for females as well as for males.”

Under both state law and the landmark federal Title IX law enacted in 1972, sex discrimination is banned in education programs. As a result, the number of girls participating in high school sports nationwide has increased tenfold, and the number of girls participating in college sports has increased fivefold.

But females in community recreation programs have not had the same protections against unequal treatment. Sex discrimination has persisted because of traditional favoritism toward male sports programs and outdated stereotypes about females’ athletic interests and abilities. Too often, girls and women have been relegated to poorer facilities, less experienced officials, and less desirable practice and play times.

The “Fair Play” bill requires cities, towns, and counties to adopt and publicize policies that explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in community recreation programs.

Additional supporters of the bill are the Northwest Women’s Law Center, the National Organization of Women of Washington, the Washington Association of Cities, and the Washington Recreation and Parks Association.

The Women’s Sports Foundation and the ACLU of Washington partnered for the “V is for Victory. So is IX.” campaign to ensure that the historic Title IX law’s promise of equality is fulfilled. The multifaceted campaign includes free educational workshops for public school coaches, athletes, and parents, viral videos, publications, and an interactive website. Women’s Sports Foundation is also spearheading this campaign in Los Angeles and Philadelphia. For more information, visit Vis4Victory.org .

Originally, I had tried to put down some thoughts so I could comment on a post at WTS. But they have grown too numerous for a comment, apparently, so I share them here. (Note: You may want to listen to the interview before reading on.)

In the interview, we are told that athletic competence (i.e., athleticism) is, or should be, paramount. Unfortunately, when an excellent opportunity to address that subject comes up, it is altogether missed. The gentleman in the studio, there ostensibly as a friendly witness, says that female basketball players have better "fundamentals." Why? Well, because they can't rely (as much?) on athletic gifts. The slight is overlooked, however, and the discussion continues on with seemingly less relevant matters.

The top male athletes no doubt rule the roost in sports media. They can do no wrong, and their options are almost limitless; do something silly or degrading, Star Male Athlete? not to worry, hardly a question will be asked or an eyebrow raised. But these are the top athletes at their sport/position in the world, and in sports, practically by definition, that is what matters most. (Why you hear much about Tiger Woods, and not so much about, say, Jerry Kelly.)

The problem for female athletes is that few fall into this category, which isn't, of course, their fault. In many cases, where they theoretically could, they aren't allowed to compete directly with men, and thus can't prove themselves against the established best. Moreover, outmoded, traditional ideals of femininity keep them from fully developing their physical prowess, atrophied from generations of forced neglect; e.g., it still isn't entirely acceptable for a woman to develop large, powerful muscles—something many women are quite capable of doing.

Clearly, then, this research at best skims the central issue, and has no relevance at all to the career choices or personal expressions of someone like Chantelle Anderson. (I suspect sex does sell sport, as it does most things, to some degree, probably varying based on how well a particular sport relates to sex. But again, this isn't the biggest issue facing female athletes anyway.)

I must also point out something not to be overlooked about the research: it is based on focus groups, not the most reliable means to make determinations of this kind. From the link already provided:

"Focus groups are not a panacea for tapping 'true' feelings. People often do not themselves understand their own motivations and preferences and thus cannot articulate them well. People have complex, even conflicting motivations which may come together in unpredictable ways given only slightly varying ways of presenting a stimulus. People may give acceptable or politically correct responses in front of peers, and they may act differently in real situations compared with hypothetical ones. They may be aware of the study's sponsorship and tell the researcher what they believe he or she wants to hear. People tend to express views which enhance their own image of themselves, and they also may formulate opinions "on the spot," lacking any real commitment to what they say. And people lie."

And:

"Focus groups are generally a poor choice when quantitative information is desired (ex., when one wants to know the percentage of people who will buy product X or vote for candidate X). The small size of focus groups makes any estimates of quantitative proportions unreliable, even if the members of the focus group are representative of the target population. By the same token, focus group research is a poor choice for multivariate research, where one again needs the stability of large random samples to be ably to disaggregate the effects of explanatory variables through statistical techniques."

So what we have, in actuality, is research that proves little or nothing but probably found what it was looking for. (Trust me, it would take a study far more comprehensive, with many more controls, than this one to come close to proving that, in all cases, sex doesn't sell sport.) But what is more, it says even less about the truly onerous obstacles confronting female athletes.

No other person does more than Aneta Florczyk, the World's Strongest Woman, to universally advance the physical empowerment of women. She travels all over performing feats of strength that undoubtedly inspire little girls and young women to grow strong themselves; in her, they see not only the possibility but the desirability of physical strength.

Last November, Aneta traveled to Beijing in order to break the world record for number of frying pans rolled in one minute. The feat was taped for television in front of an audience:

Earlier this week, President Obama paid tribute to the NCAA basketball champions at the White House. Near the end of the ceremony he speaks as the father of two girls, and I find those remarks his most telling:

Janet Raloff of Science News reports on the recent findings concerning oral contraceptives and female athletes. To some of you, her account may be more intelligible than the one I referenced last week. If so, it's worth more space here to direct attention to it. Why? I give three reasons. First, because there are precious few sports where strength training is not at all relevant, both for athletic performance and for injury prevention. Second, because the findings present something more nuanced than an either-or dilemma ("should I take the pill or not?"); i.e., some pills, those with low-androgenicity progestins, don't produce the problem. Third, because there are other considerations beyond those related to athletics. The best possible advice to female athletes: stay informed and consult your doctor.

The free market, much maligned lately for political hay, though to her credit not by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, does something really well: it makes clear the value society places on things. For example, this weekend I learned that a 21-year-old quarterback, unproven in the NFL, is worth $72 million ($41.7 million guaranteed, with incentives as much as $78 million over the next six years). Meanwhile, Serena Williams, the highest paid female athlete ever, has career earnings of $24 million. Says something, doesn't it?

Oh, well. The IWFL season is under way, which means football played for the love of the game.