Yesterday was the 25th annual National Girls and Women in Sports Day. To mark the occasion—better late than never!—I am sharing a nice little salute to women in sports put together by Pretty Tough:

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:

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?

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.

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:

There seems to be modest interest in the Who should be Wonder Woman? poll, I'm happy to report. And thus far voting has been spread evenly, without a runaway leader; I assume this follows from a superb group of contenders. Continue voting—you can vote more than once—and sending in nominations, or rather, start sending them in, as I haven't received any recently.

Oh, and have a wonderful holiday too!—