Equality for a 10th-rate sporting realm?

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke8/19/16
My, my, there those feminists go, complaining again. This time the whining concerns supposedly “sexist” Olympics coverage. Their problem?

Many journalists are, we’re told, using different language when talking about female athletes than when speaking of male ones. Oh, the humanity!

There’s the guy who credited a female swimmer’s husband/coach for her success, the talk about a six-foot-three-inch South Korean woman volley ball player’s difficulty finding a boyfriend, and a reporter who called an equestrian rider “blondie.” Putting aside the female teacher who once called me blondie when I was 13, let’s have a reality check. Do you really think sports commentators don’t look for storylines, often infused with frivolity, relating to male athletes? And insofar as the treatment is different, so what? As even über-liberal Bill Maher once observed (I’m paraphrasing), “We have two standards because there are two sexes.” But speaking of standards and differences, let’s get to a quintessential feminist complaint in a recent (very) Lost Angeles Times piece about “sexist Olympics coverage.”

Citing a Cambridge University Press study, writer Julie Makinen tells us, “The research, which analyzed multibillion-word databases of written and spoken English language, found that in general, men are referenced twice as often as women, but when the topic is sports, the ratio is about 3 to 1.” Male athletes earn more money as well, which also irks the feminists.

Of course, this is much like complaining about how heavyweight boxers get more press than lightweights or, speaking of lightweights, like kvetching about Barack Obama getting more exposure than a state legislator from Lakeview. Has Makinen ever heard of “market forces”?

Yet there’s a simple reason why men are referenced in sports three times as much as women — and if I don’t say it, no one will.

Women’s sports aren’t exactly a quality product.

Oh, female athletes look great compared to a weekend warrior or a feminist scribe’s writing. But how much coverage should they get? And if unequal press and pay are your bugaboo, here’s a cause for you: high-school boy athletes get far less coverage than the women, and no pay at all. Is that fair?

Oh, there’s no comparison? That’s true, as the following illustrates:

  • In May, the Australian women’s soccer team, the Matildas — ranked five in the world — played an under-15 boys team.

The women lost — 7-0.

  • Lest you think this a fluke, the U.S. Women’s National Team (ranked number one in the world) lost 8-2 to the under-17 U.S. boys’ team in 2012. And these things actually happen all the time, everywhere, as the women regularly scrimmage with quality boys — and lose.
  • The world’s best women’s hockey team, the Canadian Women’s Olympic Team, played in the Alberta AAA Midget Hockey League (boys 15-17) during the 2013-2014 season. They finished dead last.
  • The mile record for 15-year-old boys is faster than the women’s world record.

Other examples abound, but the point has been made.

Now, given the above results, it’s ironic that soccer’s U.S. Women’s National Team actually filed a wage-discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Can the boys file a complaint, too?

As for skill levels, there’s a heck of a lot of daylight between boys whose voices recently cracked and top-tier men’s competition. How many rungs down on the ladder are the women, really?

So with this perspective, let me rephrase my earlier question: how much coverage (and money) should a 10th-rate sporting realm get? (Is this Farxism {feminist Marxism}: from each according to his abilities, to each according to her moaning and groaning?) Answer: forget comparisons with the men.

It would be far more appropriate if women athletes got the coverage and pay of the 15-year-old boys.

Speaking of which, why is it that people watch women’s sports, anyway (to the extent they do), instead of, let’s say, watching superior high-school boys’ competitions? Shouldn’t better athletes draw bigger audiences than lesser ones?

Women’s sports have the success they do largely because of political correctness. This has three basic effects:

  • There’s a general feeling that since men have a vibrant professional athletics arena, it’s only fair if the women do, too; this leads to institutional impetus to create, perpetuate and subsidize (e.g., the WNBA) professional women’s sporting opportunities.
  • Decades of feminism and politically correct portrayals of the sexes have led people to believe that female athletes are far better than they actually are. Do you really think women’s sports would enjoy even their current limited commercial success if the average person knew their athletes paled in comparison to high-level high-school boys?
  • Owing to the above, professional women’s sports are now institutionalized and, at least for some people, have become “a thing to watch.” It’s as with actors or singers. Commercial success requires not that you be the best (or second, third or seventh best) — only that you have a market. This, of course, also explains the careers of most politicians and journalists.

Any complaint about sex inequality in sports should be met with one simple response: if the women want the men’s press or purses, there’s an easy way to get them.

Compete in — and succeed — in the men’s arena. You’ll be the talk of the town.

Isn’t it a little odd, though, complaining about unequal treatment while supporting a system that’s inherently unequal; namely, having separate and protected tours, leagues and teams for women? It’s a bit like forming a basketball league exclusively for short Jewish guys and then bellyaching that they don’t command the salaries of the NBA stars. As The Federalist’s Denise McAllister wrote last year, “If we’re going to have equal pay, then we need to have equal play.”

Instead, people just play at Equality™. Second-rate pay for a tenth-rate arena may not be “fair,” but not in the way feminists think. And if they still don’t agree, I know some 15-year-old boys they can talk to about that.


Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com • (607 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Equality for a 10th-rate sporting realm?

  1. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Ann Coulter wrote about this some time ago. She gave a boatload of similar statistics showing how male teenagers out performed the best female athletes pretty much in every sport.

    The biggest joke is the law which required colleges and universities to institute female sports teams even if nobody wanted to attend their events.

    It is the same with women in the military. Females just don’t have the strength and recovery abilities of males. When I was around 20 years old, I could whip off 25 real pullups without a sweat. And there were lots of males who could do the same. How many females could? As I recall, young males recover faster from strenuous exercise, for example 20 miles hikes, than young females due to the high levels of testosterone. That is not going to change

    But facts never get in the way of ideology so don’t expect anything to the Left to listen.

    As a side note, a female who tried to get through Marine officer training was not up to it. So far, none have been.

    Here is the story.

    http://www.stripes.com/news/female-marine-dropped-from-infantry-officer-course-1.424054

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    Well, actually, I understand that women are better than men at gymnastics. Other than that, the reason people watch women in sports/athletics is because feminists want to feel good and men want to see attractive women. Given affirmative action, it’s probably just s well that the women don’t compete directly with men. Who needs merit eliminated from sports as it has been in so many other places (and increasingly is in the military)?

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Well, actually, I understand that women are better than men at gymnastics.

      There’s no friggin’ way a woman can do the rings like a man. She can’t hold the iron cross like a man can. I would say “better” in the case of gymnastics is purely an aesthetic judgment. And, indeed, I would rather watch a woman engage in this form of stylized athletic “dance” (thinking floor exercise) than a man.

  3. Glenn Fairman says:

    If the trend towards elective gender identification continues without regard to the iron laws of biology, then women’s sports will soon be a thing of the past, and all the bitching in the world will not remediate the fact that that xy has profound advantages over xx. In Saturday’s W800, Caster Semenya’s hyperandrogenism will be a much-discussed issue, but it is widely believed that both Margaret Wambui and Francine Niyonsaba (also 800 finalists) were also helped by last year’s CAS ruling on intersex athletes.

    Semenya, who by the way happens to be married to a woman in SA, looks like Muhammad Ali compared to the xy females and succeeded in not only earning the right to compete in the 800, but the 400 and 1500 as well. It was deemed prudent that Semenya limit herself due to the bad juju which will arise from what amounts to a man encroaching on women’s territory. This is not to say that Caster should not be allowed to run, but that “she” should run against xx competition—the problem being that “she” can’t cut the mustard with the men. Shame on CAS for allowing this blatant travesty, even as an athlete in Track and field was DQ’d from for stepping across a line (Kemboi 3000ST) that offered him no material advantage.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      then women’s sports will soon be a thing of the past

      As a purely sideline commentator with no skin in this game since I consider most people thoroughly crazy by now — or completely neutered in regards to actually doing anything about this stuff — I think the only interest left is a betting one. Which grievance faction will win out?

      It could be the women’s sports becomes marginalized by the drive for “equality” which would provide a very easy way to get past the difficulties of the gender confused or the biologically ambiguous. Women are already a special category away from men’s sports. Because it is unlikely any of the gender confused or biologically ambiguous can challenge real men, they will inevitably get dumped into women’s sports.

      The existence of a separate category of women’s sports would seem to be undermined by gender-equality politics. But it’s not really in the Left’s interest to bring down women’s sports because women are the primary faction in their coalition. But how then do you make room for “transgenders” and all this nonsense without undermining the separation of men’s sports and women’s sports?

      No problem exists in men’s sports because men are always the best in any sport that requires physical prowess. It’s possible a woman could beat a man in darts, billiards, or target shooting, but that’s about it. No special barriers (other than drug use which can produce super-men) are needed. If a biological woman turns herself into a faux man and wants to run with men, have at it. The only question is whether these fake men can be said to have boosted their normal physical performance with drugs (testosterone injections, in this case). But it seems unlikely that testosterone alone could make up for the many differences that exist between men and women, particular to raise a fake man’s performance to world-class level. Perhaps at the high-school level they might compete. But that’s about it.

      Men’s sports is about the best of the best. Women’s sports has always been about having a way for women to compete amongst themselves in a lesser category but one this is fair in the standard definition of fair (based completely on the idea that men and women are in no way physically equal). It’s impolite to state it this way, but it’s the reality of it. You can have co-ed sports and that’s all well and good and can make for good camaraderie. But that is irrelevant to individual sports where the point is to find out who is the fastest, can jump the highest, can lift the most weight, etc.

      So this is really up to the women. So far they have been okay with the girlification of men in their quest for not just equality but a kind of superiority. It’s always been okay, at least in their minds, to invade men’s clubs. But just like there can be a “Black Caucus” in Congress but no White Caucus, so it has been assumed that men may not invade women’s species — women and blacks both being declared official cultural victims, for example.

      But now women may have met a greater victim, the psychologically maladjusted (or just malformed due to plain bad luck) male who, due to the trumping of gender politics over feminist politics, has found a loophole. And the only interest remaining — the betting interest — is if the sense of women victimhood can counteract gender victimhood. I’m guessing in the short-term that women’s sports will become watered-down, if not dominated by those who take advantage of this loophole. Will women then go back to making cookies and baking bread?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      It’s a bit of a nitpick, but you seem to be mixing up the male and female genes. Men are xy, women are xx.

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    A really sloppily written article. Get to the point, Maggie. But it’s amusing to see the man-boy problem pointed out even in regards to olympic athletes: Ryan Lochte and America’s Man-Boy Problem

  5. Glenn Fairman says:

    The more humanity travels down its primrose path of artificiality into the incoherence of its squalid imagination, in a vector away from Reason, Revelation, and indeed Nature, the greater its self-fulfilling judgment shall be as the shifting foundations are shaken–leaving nothing but misery as mankind’s inheritance.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      What we’re doing is reordering society to fit the exception with no care at all about how many people suffer because they fit according to the rule.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        This happens because liberal identity politics is based on a hierarchy in which anyone considered to be of higher victim status (and I think trannies seem to top the field at present) is reflexively supported against anyone of lower victim status. So if you screw (figuratively, one trusts) a million girls to satisfy one tranny — well, that’s where liberal “logic” leads.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Minorities of any kind are certainly glorified and given deference. Somewhere out there there’s a one-legged blind lesbian-caught-in-a-man’s-body tattooed ex felon atheist necrophiliac transhuman out there just waiting to rule the world.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            The YAF magazine The New Guard had a nice story (“Nasus of Musgravia”) that dealt with this very subject over 40 years ago. I may still have my copy of it around here somewhere. In this case, the alien who arranged to be the ultimate minority lost out on a job to someone who actually wanted to do the job — and, even more important, was “the rarest minority in the known universe”, an American conservative (thought to have been all purged long before).

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        The Founders were concerned about the “Tyranny of the Majority”, when shaping the Constitution.

        For over 40 years, we have developed into a “Tyranny of the Minorities”, because too many of the majority have been asleep or fooled.

  6. SkepticalCynic SkepticalCynic says:

    Equality may be needed in some areas of life but as a general rule equality as the politically correct dips chase just ain’t in the cards. You see, God, whether you believe in Him or not has intentionally made us all unequal. I would love to play the piano like Doctor John and Jules Holland or be able to sing like Elvis Presley. I would like to fly a fighter aircraft like the pilots that have the “right stuff.” I am unequal to many, many people but in spite of my limited talents God did give me some talents and I have honed them over my lifetime and managed to make a decent living though the closest I ever came to college was driving by a few of them.

    So, let these nitwits convince you that we all need to be equal for life to be fair. All you are doing is showing you ignorance and bloodying your head.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Now, there you are, relying on facts. Every liberal worth his salt knows that people are just indistinguishable cogs in the machine of society. So speaks their ideology.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *