Men in Cages: If You Don't Have Balls, Maybe Playing Ball Isn't For You

Those who excel in the realm of sport are generally treated like kings.  Hell, they're generally treated better than kings.  They get all the riches in the world and never have to deal with shit like ruling a nation, waging war, or undergoing defenestration.

But, just as most kings are (by definition) men, most athletes who receive regal treatment are men as well.  Male athletes receive far greater salaries and garner far more media attention than do female athletes.  Male athletes are worshipped, adored, and have sneakers named after them.  Female athletes, in a word (or rather, in a contraction), don't.  And, wouldn't you know it, this disparity has been known to piss off the feminists . . .

While I was in college, I read a feminist rant about the injustice that is women's position in the sporting world.  The article blamed American society for the fact that women get the short end of the stick.  How?, you ask.  Well, the article made the claim that men are not generally athletically superior to women; they just happen to be athletically superior to women at those specific athletic pursuits that American society holds most dear.  That is to say, there are sports that women are better at than men; Americans just don’t give a crap about them (presumably, because America hates women).

Which sports are women better at than men, you might ask?  This article provided an answer, or course.  And I remember it quite vividly: marathon swimming.  Yes, that’s right, marathon swimming – the national sport of Egypt.

Marathon swimming involves, as you might have guessed, swimming preposterously long distances.  Supposedly, women’s bodies are better suited for this pursuit than are men’s.  (Though, I checked times from the ’07 PanAm Games, and the men clearly appear to have outpaced the ladies.)  But, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that the author of this article wasn't a dirty liar who foolishly assumed nobody would bother to check up on her outlandish claims.  Let's pretend women actually are better than men at marathon swimming.  This "fact" still begs the question: who the fuck cares?

The article's author (who shall henceforth be known as Professor Charlatan) was trying to advance the age-old argument that culture is what dictates men's and women's positions in society.  In this specific context, male athletes are revered to a greater extent than are female athletes because our culture dictates that those sports at which men excel are the most important and worthy of praise.  If only we were a forward-thinking nation like Egypt and cared more about marathon swimming, says Prof. Charlatan, then there might be some gender equality in the distribution of commerical endorsements . . .

Oh please - that's a load of crap.  There is no possible way that anyone in Egypt gives a shit about marathon swimming.  (Granted, I'm no Egyptologist.  But, while working as an educator at Anonymous Elementary School for Jews, I did attend the 6th grade's Ancient Egypt Showcase, so I consider myself pretty well-qualified to discuss what does and does not go on in the Sphinx State.) 

Marathon swimming is not a spectator sport.  It's even less of a spectator sport than is marathon running.  (And who the hell wants to watch marathon running?  When there is a marathon in my proximity, I don't "spectate"; I briefly think "Thank God I'm not doing that," and get on with my day.)  Marathon swimming in Egypt is probably like jousting in Maryland - yeah, it's the official sport, but nobody cares about it unless they're drunk at the Renaissance Faire.  I don't revere great jousters; I just like saying "huzzah!" at them. 

Anyway, the point I wish to make is that people like to watch sports that are entertaining (i.e., not marathon swimming).  And, consequently, they will revere athletes who excel at these entertaining sports.  The lack of reverence for female athletes isn't about our culture telling us that female athletes are less important than male athletes; it's about women not excelling to the same extent that men do at sports that are interesting to watch.

Women lack the height, upper body strength, and speed of men.  Consequently, they can't dunk or hit home runs with the flair that men can.  It is only reasonable that their less thrilling athleticism generates less thrilled crowds.  Women do, however, have greater grace and balance than do men - and this is not overlooked.  Lest we forget, female figure skaters and gymnasts are far more famous than their male counterparts.

Anyway, people often argue that if more hype surrounded women's sports, people would come to appreciate them to a greater extent.  I can't say that I buy into this.  It's one thing to put money into women's sports in an effort to get more girls involved in athletics - I'm all for that.  It's another thing entirely to put money into women's sports and expect that it will turn into major social change.  You can promote women in sports and get more girls to play soccer.  You probably can't promote women in sports and suddenly expect the WNBA to start playing to sell-out crowds.  No matter how much you advertise for a second-rate product, it's not going to sell well.  (Thus the demise of such great ideas as the Arch Deluxe.)

I don't seek to end on a negative note here.  I very much enjoyed playing sports as a kid and it was wonderful to have athletic female role models like Picabo Street and Summer Sanders while I was growing up.  (It was even more wonderful when Summer Sanders also became my game-show-hosting female role model.  Always breaking down gender barriers that woman is!)  That said, I don't think it's a social injustice that there are more famous male athletes than there are famous female athletes.  That's a biological injustice.  (And, as far as injustices go, that there will never be a female linebacker is hardly the world's greatest tragedy.)

The thing is, there are lots of things that women are super at.  Thus, there's really no reason to get down about the fact that women are not as awesome as men at barbaric pursuits like wrestling.  Women excel in such realms as art, literature, and education.  So, bravo for women!  Hooray for these strengths!  (Even if they're only strengths in the figurative sense . . .)  No need to be unhappy about the lives of women!

As much as I would like to conclude with the cheery, exclamation-point-wielding sentences I just wrote, I know it wouldn't be fair to do so.  My feminist readership is unlikely to be satisfied with such unbridled optimism; they're going to want something to be pissed off about.  So here goes: Feminists have no right to bitch about the fact that there are more male superstar athletes than female superstar athletes.  That's no one's fault but God's.  Feminists have every right to bitch about the fact that men are more revered in other realms, however.  As I stated above, women might not be tall, strong, or fast; but they are smart and creative.  It makes sense that female athletes aren't as high-profile as male athletes, but it does not make sense that female chefs are not as high-profile as male chefts, that female professors are not as high-profile as male professors, etc.

So, angry feminists, go ahead and get pissed off.  Make posters, picket, chant about the injustices in our society.  But don't do it about gender inequality in sports.  Because that's fucking stupid.  And, relative to men, women may be short, weak, and slow; but we sure as hell ain't stupid.

Men in Cages" runs Friday afternoons.  You can read more about Tori here.

Comments

[Johnny Cash]

This is supposed to make you not want to drink?

[EmGusk]

i keep trying to post something saying that i love gymkana, but the blog thinks i'm spamming. i do love gymkana though.

[EmGusk]

i swear i had a conversation today with a lady about how fun it is to watch marathons. (not swimming, that sounds really crappy...) to be honest, it was at a race, BUT it is really fun to watch marathons and cheer on the runners. i promise.