Female Athletes

Being an Olympic athlete is a full-time job. There isn't time for much else. Thus money can be a problem. Depending on the athlete's sport and country, sometimes there will be a full sponsorship. Generally this is not the case, however. Instead, the typical Olympian is left to figure out on her own how to subsist and pay for training expenses. In particular, women who compete in strength-related sports quite often need financial assistance.

It is important that we support female strength athletes. They must be free to devote themselves, without distraction, to developing their bodies and advancing their sport; that is, if we really do want a future where women are regarded for their physical strength on a par with men.

Olympic hammer-thrower Loree Smith, for example. Loree works hard year-round to make herself a better, stronger thrower. Just as important, she doesn't allow oversimplified, restrictive feminine ideals to influence her training: "I love being strong and athletic, and I absolutely love being a woman and don't believe the two are exclusive!" says Loree. With her talent, determination, and hard work, she is paving the way to that aforementioned future.

But once again, Loree needs our help. Fortunately, she has made this easy enough (also here). So, now, before 2010 is gone, make a donation that helps Loree keep her dream going, not to mention ours.

P.S. — Here is Loree in action:

A splendid day to be a fan of women's sports. Last night UConn went to 89-0. Awesome!

I hadn't paid much attention to the Lingerie Football League before recently. I had seen just enough about it to know that I wasn't that interested. But over the last few weeks the controversy that it engenders has become increasingly difficult to avoid.

Most objections to the LFL center on the skimpy attire worn by the players (a strange mix of bras, panties, garters, pads, and helmets). This is to be expected, particularly here in the US where a marked remnant of Puritanism still colors things. (We live in a country that is at once uptight about sexuality and addicted to pornography—tells you something, doesn't it?) Knowing that sex is integral to life, which of course includes athletics, I typically abstain from criticism along those lines. I suspect that we would be better off, maybe not so schizophrenic, were we a little more comfortable with our bodies and our sexuality. Oh well, that's a topic for another time.

So the LFL is entertainment (titillation?) glossed as sport. There isn't anything inherently wrong with that. I will, however, submit one admonitory observation. That LFL players are rated by how they look—conventionally feminine with just a tinge of athletic—rather than by how they might play football or whether they have the size and body type advantageous to certain football positions possibly does send an unwanted message, one already repeated too often in our culture, to athletically inclined girls: to be an athletic woman is acceptable so long as one doesn't overdo it and stays within certain confines.

The LFL managed to get press again last night with its first "brawl." Some think it was staged. Either way, does it matter?

Last year I hinted that the Penn State volleyball dynasty maybe hadn't yet run its course. My intuition turns out to have been correct: the Nittany Lions won their fourth straight volleyball championship Saturday night.

Then, Sunday afternoon, the UConn women's basketball team won its 88th consecutive game, tying the NCAA basketball record held by the UCLA 1971-74 men's team. The Huskies will attempt to break the record Tuesday night, when they host Florida State.

Congratulations, Lions and Huskies!

Before Title IX was even a pipe dream, Vicki Unus and untold other athletic women managed somehow to give expression to their physicality. Certainly that was the case for the two female boxers seen in this rare video clip, without which they might otherwise be lost to history.

Former taekwondo champion and Rigged star Rebecca Welsh, née Neuenswander, is a rightful contender to be Wonder Woman. In her case, however, a script may not be required—she already plays a wonder woman in real life with her HALO foundation. This year she once again asks that we help out too, by playing Santa Claus to her Wonder Woman:

My week started with a guest appearance on Women Talk Sports Radio. I was invited on to talk about gender segregation in sports. The discussion centered on an article written by a promising high school journalist named Julia Friedman. I had been forewarned but didn't take heed: this week's theme would be: can girls compete with boys in sports?

This became evident Tuesday when I came across another article, which had been published in Washington Square News (the student newspaper for New York University). This second article can accurately be described as facile. Madeline Paumen, its author, thinks not only that women cannot hope to ever compete with men, but also that they shouldn't play sports rigorously as the men do, for they are too delicate. (Is this really the year 2010?)

Let's do away with a few myths here. Female athletes will invariably be compared with male athletes; neither wishful thinking nor complaining will change that. Moreover, how many honestly believe that for women to simply participate in sports, watered-down of course, without any hope of their being seen as truly elite athletes is satisfactory? I suspect not many in the general population think this way, certainly fewer still among female athletes.

I've pointed this out many times, and I apologize to frequent readers for doing so again, but human biology isn't fixed; it is in fact astonishingly plastic. The environment and societal forces have tremendous influence on our biology, including how testosterone and other muscle-building hormones are produced and utilized in our bodies. Therefore, whether or not X is the norm biologically now doesn't mean it will always hold true. There was a time, not long ago either, when it was said that women couldn't match the intellectual capacity of men because their brains are smaller than men's. We know this to be foolish today. While it is the case that women, on average, have smaller brain sizes, their brains are wired differently, more efficiently (e.g., more neuron fibers in the corpus callosum). That they were (and sometimes still are) denied access to learning and education probably had the say in any perceived differences in cognitive ability. The same, of course, could apply equally to athletics as well.

Despite their still being hampered by feminine ideals incompatible with athletic competition, female athletes have made remarkable gains (beyond those made by male athletes in the same period) during the little more than a generation that they have had genuine access to athletics. So already we can see changes afoot.

There has been much fuss lately over the "epidemic" of injuries experienced by female athletes. Certainly injuries are a very real issue for female athletes and those who care for them. Still, I can't help thinking that some people are using the subject for reactionary purposes.

Here is the difficulty. We know that early and frequent work in the weight room helps reduce injuries, in youth and later on. Moreover, strength training improves athletic performance overall, it even raises levels of muscle-building hormones naturally. Simple enough. But why aren't more girls and young women lifting heavy? Because they have to overcome the aesthetic aversion to women with big muscles, thick necks, etc. that our culture still clings to. Thus, the solution is within easy reach, yet seemingly invisible.

Often we are distracted by issues irrelevant to improving the lot of female athletes; for example, how much skin female athletes show, or whether they are being "objectified." But, as we've already seen, a broken aesthetic is their biggest obstacle. It must go before female athletes can realize their athletic potential, and someday perhaps rival their male colleagues.

I should add one more thing before ending. The Washington Square News article says in effect that female athletes should just give up—throw in the towel so to speak. Yet the request is illogical, it transgresses a known fact—strong women don't quit.

Finally it is time to ask, "Who should be Wonder Woman?" And to your left (also here) you'll see a fancy (garish?) new poll where you can respond with your vote. There are, to begin with, ten candidates from which to make your choice. These women are, in the main, plausible and impeccably qualified; but the list also shuns banality. For example, it includes two world-class athletes (Gina Carano and Natalie Coughlin), the selection of either of whom to don the costume would set in place a grand message for young women.

But there is room for more, so (sensible) nominations are welcome. You can leave a comment here, or send in your suggestion by email.

Tess Kielhamer proves a maxim of mine: never mess with a ballerina.

The Women's Sports Foundation held its 31st Annual Salute to Women in Sports gala in New York City last week (see video). Perhaps the most news-worthy item there was the announcement that WSF would be the "official charity" of espnW, a new brand for women to be launched soon by ESPN. On its surface ESPN's attempt to cater to women would seem a positive thing, but not everyone agrees. I too see a downside: espnW crystallizes gender segregation in sports further, taking us in the wrong direction good intentions notwithstanding.

Yes, we want to see women in sports getting more coverage. But this should be done via plain ol' ESPN (or its established sister networks, like ESPN2 and ESPNU). Segregation in sports perpetuates the second-class status, real or imagined, of female athletes. No amount of palaver or wishful thinking will materially change that.

Farah Malhass has faced numerous obstacles, including death threats, on her road to becoming a competitive bodybuilder on the international stage. Saturday, she competed at the 2010 World Bodybuilding and Fitness Federation World Championship, her first international competition, where at one point she posed in an outfit bedecked with medals—quite fitting, I think.

Under Armour deems athletic women crucial to its business model, attested by a new campaign that specifically targets female athletes. It's a smart move—or rather, a no-brainer—on UA's part because women have so thoroughly embraced the athletic lifestyle in recent years. Fittingly, UA shows us how great the transformation has become in one of the new ads:

Had she retired ten years ago, Merlene Ottey would have ended what was already then a remarkably long and productive career as a sprinter. But she didn't. Today, she is still running strong at 50. And judging by this recent interview, I don't expect that the "Queen of the Track" will relinquish her throne anytime soon:

When Caster Semenya races, people talk. Sometimes in support of her, but very often it's the opposite, sadly enough. Lately, this latter sort (or something very close to it) has been coming from her sister athletes, that is, her competitors, many of whom think it unfair that they should have to race against her.

But let's forget, for a moment, Semenya. Rather, let's focus on the ignorant, gender-abasing obsession with a "male biology" that supposedly confers unfair, insuperable athletic advantage, here in particular the hormone testosterone:

"We have levels that we are not allowed to test over, so even if she’s a female, she’s on the very fringe of the normal female athlete biological composition from what I understand in terms of hormone testing," Cummins [Diane Cummins, who finished eighth in Berlin] said. "So from that perspective I think most of us sort of just feel like literally we are running against a man because what we know to be female is a certain testosterone level. And if that isn't the case, they need to change everything."

The first and most obvious problem with such thinking: There is no certain (precisely defined) testosterone level for females! Testosterone, the so-called male hormone which nearly all women have in their bodies, can be found in widely varying amounts among women, with some women having levels well into the range generally considered "male".

What is more, even a baseline testosterone level for individuals is hard to come by. Monitor someone's testosterone and you'll find that it changes constantly, responding to all manner of environmental factors, some seemingly random, others quite predictable. Strength training, for instance, increases testosterone naturally, only women have to work just a little harder and longer to get the benefit. Sex (# 8), too, raises testosterone levels. (Should female track athletes with already "high" levels abstain from sex before meets?)

Research the subjects of steroid-, hormone-, and gender-testing for a time and you see how silly and hurtful the effort to make sport perfectly "fair" has become. Anything beyond the most basic of tests is in fact pointless and counterproductive. The witch-hunt has to end sometime.

Another gymnastics standout making the transition to acting and stunt work. Only Ariana Berlin has a story that could fairly be judged miraculous, and a demo reel more rhythmic than any previously featured here: