Athletic Women Blog - Feminism

Shocking News: Bodybuilders show off their bodies!

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:46:00 -0400

In another story for the Mrs. Grundy files, a high-school administrator bans a coed bodybuilding contest, saying that she doesn't want the school associated with "scantily clad women."

This is, of course, foolish on many levels. But why is it that men can wear next to nothing without anyone saying a word against it, yet women get scorn to no end for wearing as much or more?

Science meets Brittney Griner

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:09:00 -0400

Watching the NCAA basketball tournament yesterday, I caught this segment from ESPN's Sport Science. Pretty cool! It is wonderful to see a female athlete spotlighted for her redoubtable athleticism; and thankfully, that happens much more often nowadays:

First look at NBC's Wonder Woman (prepare yourself)

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 09:28:00 -0400

It's not as though in popular culture girls and women have symbols of strength to spare. Perhaps if they did what David E. Kelley and NBC are doing to Wonder Woman wouldn't be quite as hurtful. The new Wonder Woman costume, as it will be worn by the actress playing Wonder Woman, was revealed Friday (in truth, probably floated as a trial balloon). Does this give you the impression of a super-strong heroine?

I suspect it doesn't. Indeed, it seems not to have for hundreds of commenters at EW.com, Facebook, and elsewhere:

Leo: "I agree! I do hate the costume, but I think she should be more toned. She looks frail and way to thin. This looks way too pin up and less Female Empowerment. This costume makes Linda Carter’s look like a pair of military fatigues."

Shaa-chan: "I agree 100%! I don’t ask much, she doesn’t have to look like a bodybuilder or anything, I would just like her to look like she has strength at all!"

Wilhemina: "Holy crap. Cheap Halloween costume-meets XXX parody costuming meets the tranny Kardashian. And those boobs are obviously, distractingly fake. Looks cheap all around. To think that this is comics’ premiere female hero. While Supes and Bats get big-budget films, reboots, and Oscar-winning franchises, the alleged third part of DC’s comic Trinity gets a crappy Ally McBeal Meets Smallville TV Pilot that already looks like a disaster."

Lisa: "I completely agree. I am so disappointed,because Wonder Woman was my favorite growing up. I watched the series religiously and even had a Wonder Woman Barbie. I was excited to be able to introduce my young daughter to an empowering female superhero….guess I’ll have to look elsewhere."

Still, we need to make absolutely certain this great heroine isn't ruined by Hollywood hacks. So, if you think it important that media represent women as athletes and physically capable beings, and I assume readers of this blog do, make your voice heard as well. Join the fight!

A muscular history for women

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 09:40:00 -0400

March is Women's History Month. Right in line, literally and figuratively, with this year's theme ("Our History is Our Strength") is David Chapman and Patricia Vertinsky's new book, Venus with Biceps: A Pictorial History of Muscular Women.

I can't review Venus with Biceps in this post, as I haven't gotten my hands on a copy yet (though it seems to get generally positive reviews—even the New Yorker). Its having been published alone warrants attention here—for books exploring this neglected and marginalized aspect of women's lives and history are few and far between. Put this special book in your to-read list.

National Girls and Women in Sports Day 2011

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 13:08:00 -0500

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:

2010, a remembrance

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 12:53:00 -0500

The year that just ended was a busy one, too busy even to summarize in one short post. But here are a few of the many noteworthy items from 2010.

The University of Connecticut women's basketball team won 90 games straight, a new record for college basketball.

Kelly Kulick became the first female Professional Bowlers Association champion.

The IAAF, after demonstrating clearly how grotesque is the enterprise of gender testing, cleared track athlete Caster Semenya for return to competition. (Unfortunately, that still left us with some whining.)

Jordanian Farah Malhass became the first Arab woman to compete in an international bodybuilding competition.

Female athletes, not surprisingly, brought their A-game to the 2010 Winter Olympics, particularly Lindsey Vonn.

In entertainment news, Covert Affairs was, in my view, the best thing to come about in 2010; I can hardly wait for its return this summer.

I try to post little amusements throughout the year that perhaps elicit a chuckle while making a point. One from 2010 that I remember
fondly is the Knight and Day stunt rehearsal gone wrong, so good it is worth a repeat. Enjoy and have a Happy New Year!—

Loree Smith and why we must support strong women

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:40:00 -0500

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:

Does the LFL brawl like it plays football?

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 19:21:00 -0500

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?

Rare boxing video, circa 1910

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:54:00 -0500

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.

Your browser does not support iframes.

Rally for Girls' Sports

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 09:50:00 -0500

The benefits that girls derive from playing sports are numerous and by now well-documented. It's likely you will see many of them articulated today, the National Women's Law Center's first-ever "Blog to Rally for Girls' Sports Day." But I'll briefly restate a few of them just in case:

Girls who participate in sports are more likely to go on to college, and more likely to graduate from college.

Girls who participate in sports are less likely to use tobacco, less likely to take drugs, and less likely to engage in risky sexual behavior.

Girls who participate in sports generally have higher self-esteem and a positive body image.

Benefits continue into adulthood too. Girls who plays sports tend to lead better and more productive lives.

On a personal note, I've seen first-hand the positive difference playing sports has made in the lives of little girls and the grown women they later became. I also know women from the generation before Title IX, and know then what they missed out on.

I'm not one who thinks Title IX sacrosanct, and my hope is that someday it will no longer be needed, that it become obsolete. Regardless, I'm thankful for it and what it made possible. The good it has done for girls and women, and for society as a whole, is incalculable.

Use the following links to further explore what girls win just by playing sports:

Girls in Sports - The Many Benefits of Team Sports For Young Women.

Facts and Findings: Sports and Physical Activity.

Raising Our Athletic Daughters.

As Girls Become Women, Sports Pay Dividends.

Nattering Ninnies of Negativism

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 16:20:00 -0500

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.

espnW, 2010 Women's Sports Foundation gala

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:02:00 -0400

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: athlete, pioneer, heroine

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:50:00 -0400

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 "Protect This House. I Will"

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:54:00 -0400

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:

Recruits meet their first DI

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:07:00 -0400

A group of young women encounter their first Marine drill instructor. Her job: start preparing these raw recruits to be warriors:

That ever so cagey hormone

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:01:00 -0400

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.

Amanda Beard in the news

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:50:00 -0400

Seven-time Olympic medalist Amanda Beard returns to competitive swimming this week, and along with that naturally comes a return to celebrity life, in not entirely predictable ways, as it turns out.

For instance, the New York Times recently ran a profile of Beard, one especially noteworthy because in it she reveals a past struggle with self-injury (i.e., deliberately cutting herself). It's good Beard draws attention to what is a serious, often shrouded problem, though likely better without so much attendant pop psychology—self-injury is rather more complicated and physiological than that.

And something else caught my attention, this time more by accident. Looking as I often do at the news ticker to the left, I saw a headline titled "The 20 Skankiest Women in Sports." More fine Internet "journalism," no doubt, but intriguing enough that I took the bait. I found nothing that was terribly surprising—mostly women who date or have dated one or more male athletes—that is, until I got to the list's headliner: Amanda Beard. And why is Beard there? Because she posed in Playboy, awful crime that it is, and for the "wrong" reason.

More evidence that female athletes, like most women really, seldom get a break. Always there is someone—be it prude or misogynist—waiting to pass harsh judgment.

Jodi Lyn O'Keefe is Lilith Reborn in 'Soul Fire Rising'

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:10:00 -0400

So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.¹

I'm guessing that some of you, maybe even most of you, don't know that Adam had a wife before Eve. Her name is Lilith. Unlike Eve, though, Lilith was created the same time Adam was, and in the same fashion.

Except there was a problem; matchmaking can be a dicey business, even for a god. Lilith refused to give up equal status, refused to subdue herself to Adam. She said to Adam, "I will not lie below," and he said, "I will not lie beneath you, but only on top. For you are fit only to be in the bottom position, while I am to be the superior one." Lilith responded, "We are equal to each other inasmuch as we were both created from the earth."

They couldn't reach agreement in this, and so Lilith went away to live alone. But as has happened to many a strong woman since then, Lilith was demonized in the press, so to speak, except quite literally in her case. Myth and folklore since that time, often refracted through patriarchal eyes, has made her into an arch-demon responsible for infant deaths. But isn't she in fact the first heroine?

Lilith's story continues to be a cultural presence down to present-day. Now it is re-imagined in a new web series called Soul Fire Rising. My interest in Soul Fire Rising stirred when I learned that Jodi Lyn O'Keefe, often mentioned to play Wonder Woman (practically a no-brainer if you ask me), would be starring. I had been keeping an eye on the series since, but no O'Keefe and it seemed rather aimless at times. But that all changed recently with Episode 5. The star takes the stage, and it now looks as though things will be picking up—if not outright rocking.

¹ From the TNIV Bible; anyone wanting to scrutinize translations should visit here and here.

Jenny Thompson: still a heroine

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 10:25:00 -0400

I've always admired Jenny Thompson. It could probably go without saying that she is one of the greatest female athletes ever. But Thompson—a bright, independent-thinking woman—also helped cultivate a new archetype for the 21st-century athletic woman; for example, when she challenged male chauvinists and priggish faux feminists alike with a seminude Sports Illustrated photo. Her response to her critics merits repeating: "I think that women have made great strides in the world of athletics and showing bodies -- the essential element in athletics -- is part of that. It's not about sex, it's about strength. Both physical and mental."

And though her Olympic days are behind her, she is still that same strong, resolute woman today—something two thugs learned by experience last week:

Wonder Woman gets a new look

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 12:03:00 -0400

I never thought I'd be saying this, but apparently it is fashion week at the Athletic Women Blog (not by choice or plan, mind you). Today's post is the result of DC Comics' announcement this week that it is giving Wonder Woman a makeover (see right). Reaction to this news, much of it negative, isn't hard to find, naturally. But the timing and the nature of the makeover have also led some to speculate about what might be planned for the forthcoming movie.

I have mixed feelings about the new look myself. The desire to update her look, to do away with the bustier and star-spangled panties, I completely understand. But to my mind this overreaches. The "urban" look for starters. Is there no room left for the simply mythic?

And the jacket. Well, that just has to go. In an effort, I can only guess, to de-sexualize Wonder Woman, they now have her covered too much. Muscle represents power, not masculine power but power alone, and Wonder Woman should be allowed to flex hers once in a while too.

Enough of my opining, though. What do you think of the new look? Leave a comment or a vote.

Caster Semenya cleared for competition

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 10:40:00 -0400

After much bumbling, the IAAF has cleared Caster Semenya to compete again. I'm happy for Semenya, and slightly hopeful that the lesson has been learned so that no one else has to go through such tribulation.

A Title IX success story

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:00:00 -0400

Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in all federally-funded education programs, and athletics programs signally, was enacted 28 38 years ago today. Never without its naysayers, Title IX has despite them been an unmitigated success. Though not the final answer to gender equality in sports—something that can't be won by mere edict—Title IX opened a path to opportunities previously denied to athletic girls.

Nothing serves better to get across the transcendent difference opportunity makes than a real-life success story. And to that end, today I offer one furnished by the California Women's Law Center:

Home security you can depend on

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 11:22:00 -0400

I've grown tired of a certain type of commercial, practically unavoidable nowadays, for home security systems. You know the story: a woman, home by herself or alone with children; a man, usually a stalker or a crazy ex; he smashes a window or kicks open a door; the woman screams; the alarm sounds; now another man, this one sane and professional, an employee with the security outfit, calls to check on her—help is on the way.

Not to make light of a serious topic, but must woman always be shown the helpless victim? Always at the mercy of some man—attacker or defender—for her safety? Can't producers of films, television series, commercials imagine life any other way, indeed, as it really is?

For it isn't that way in real life. A woman's safety is her own province, whether she likes it or not, and something for which she is well-equipped; and the athletic woman, abundantly so.

In point of fact, the would-be attacker in the Cincinnati area who recently found out the hard way:

Study finds that women athletes are absent from TV news

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 13:30:00 -0400

You could have knocked me over with a feather when I learned that local television news hardly covers women's athletics.

But of course I jest. This I already knew—sans 20-year study and all.

I must confess, however, to being caught unawares by one conclusion:

"The peak was in 1999," said [Cheryl Cooky, assistant professor of health and kinesiology and women's studies at Purdue University]. "The local affiliates covered almost nine percent and that's gone down now to 1.6 percent in 2009."

I was not expecting a trend so steep in the wrong direction; a little disheartening to say the least.

In the news: Title IX

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:39:00 -0400

By giving young women many more opportunities to compete in athletics Title IX made possible the awe-inspiring female athletes we see today. I am singularly grateful for that.

Never far from it, Title IX was again in the news this week when the Obama administration, of course not without fanfare, announced that it was revising (or re-revising) the rules of compliance for colleges.

I am not an expert on Title IX arcana, and have no desire to be, but ever the chronicler of politicians' capers, I can say without risking much that the move was made with political calculations in mind. The reform actually goes against the advice of the bipartisan United States Commission on Civil Rights, and is probably a political stunt more than anything else. Obama and his minions know that he needs his base intact when angry white men turn out en masse this November, if he is to keep Congress anyway.

Is the reform, then, itself wrong-headed? I don't think so, but I don't know enough about it to be counted on to say. But it is odd, I think, that the change goes against the recommendations of the USCCR. And at the Sports Economist I found another option, seemingly ignored altogether, which again made me think. Then there was the infernal logic of the Cato Institute.

I really couldn't care less about men's sports, collegiate or otherwise, and I'm always skeptical of claims suggesting that opportunities are being "stolen" from men and handed to women. Nonetheless, I do care about fairness, individual rights, rule of law—the things that make our society at least marginally better than a banana republic.

Title IX has clearly done much good. But that doesn't mean it's only benign. The handiwork of politicians rarely is (and the Law of Unintended Consequences usually has its say if nothing else). Hence Title IX supporters, and here I count myself, should always be mindful of its potential flaws.

Finally, I'll caution once more against thinking that female athletes can gain equal status simply by fiat. That must be earned in gyms and on playing fields.

(Umm, did I miss something?)

Caster Semenya, IAAF ineptitude, Marx not the answer

nospam@example.com (Rob Mars) — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:34:00 -0400

I rarely find much sound thinking in the writings of an avowed Marxist, but "Let Caster Semenya Run!" by Dave Zirin and Sherry Wolf actually contains snippets of clarity, as here:

What is really at stake here, aside from the persecution of a young athlete? Lurking beneath the salacious coverage is the sports world's underlying ethic--women are inferior to men.

The notion that there is an enormous physical gulf between men and women's athletic abilities is rarely questioned. No male athletes are tested to see if they are intersex because maleness is considered the physical gold standard against which women must be judged. Silly details like what happens when attempts are made at leveling the playing field between the sexes are ignored. For example, the 1988 Olympic record in the women's 400-meter freestyle swim would have beaten all men's times before the 1972 Olympics. In cross-country skiing, where endurance, strength and agility are key, the women's Olympic record of the fifteen-kilometer race in 1994 would have beaten all men's before 1992. In the thirty-kilometer race, the women's Olympic time in 1992 would have beaten all men's times in previous 30-kilometer races, according to the Women's Sports Foundation.

And perhaps this is also the case, once or twice anyway, in Wolf's book.

Still, the cognitive dissonance one experiences when even for a moment considering that communist thought might be the place from which human rights will spring is too much to endure. There are philosophies, nay organizations, much better suited to bring about the changes that Wolf allegedly champions.