NOW sent out a press release via e-mail today that reads in part:

“Just three weeks before the November election, tens of thousands of activists will gather in Washington, D.C. to demand an end to poverty and violence against women and to call for equality between women and men,” said National Organization for Women (NOW) President Patricia Ireland.

I guess we’re supposed to conclude from this that equality between women and men is incompatible for calling for an end to violence against men, much less government concern about men who are in poverty. Not surprising from the organization that passed a resolution condemning a Congressional call for fathers to be more involved in the raising of their children.

Source:

National Organization for Women press release, September 28, 2000.

Tuesday, September 26, 2000

After I pointed out what I think is feminist hypocrisy over the Nike ads, there was some discussion on the site along the lines of, “get real, you don’t think violence is a real problem for men, do you?” Actually, yes.

Men are the overwhelming victims of violent crime in every society of which I am aware (if somebody knows of a society in which women are more likely to be victims of violent crime, please let me know so I can make a correction). Many radical feminists seem to think that this is besides the point because most of the violence against men is committed by other men — conflating the perpetrator and victim in a classic blame the victim argument.

In fact violent acts, regardless of whether they are perpetrated by men or women, are usually committed by a small minority of individuals who have a history of prior criminal offenses and little regard for their fellow human beings. The person who commits violent acts out of the blue certainly exist, but is definitely in the minority.

The problem I and other critics of contemporary feminism have is that some feminists only object to violence against women and not men. Cathy Young beautifully illustrated this in a recent column, Anti-male bias infects too many campuses, in which she described the bizarre aftermath of a murder/suicide at the University of Michigan,

A more recent incident at U[University of]-M[ichigan] suggests that the university deserves its place on the top 10 anti-male colleges list. Last year, a female student fatally stabbed her boyfriend (who had never been accused of violence and had been trying to break up with her) and then shot herself. The Women’s Studies Department held a memorial service — for the killer.

Is that what feminists fought for so hard for so long? To memorialize and honor murderers, provided they are women? In fact I suspect that almost all people, male or female, find the actions of Michigan’s Women’s Studies Department to be revolting, which only illustrates just how far radical/academic feminism has strayed from the admirable goal of sexual equality.

When Islamic extremists and feminists agree on a principle, run for cover. In this case, both feminists and a Kuwaiti politician both decried the provocative display of the female body in regards to the same event: the Olympics.

In Kuwait, the conservative member of parliament Waleed al-Tabtabai complained about the obscene display of women’s bodies during televised coverage of women’s beach volleyball, diving and synchronized swimming at the Olympics in Sydney, Australia. “A number of competitions, especially those for women,” al-Tabtabai complained, “include indecent displays which require that television should stop showing them to viewers. … Showing such competitions cannot be accepted as sports because they only reflect Western standards which do not provide a woman’s body with the sanctity, honor and protection that Islam does.”

This is one of only several causes al-Tabtabai has taken up — in 1997 at his initiative Kuwait banned music concerts where both men and women were allowed to attend.

Al-Tabtabai was joined in his criticism of the sexualization of women in sports by feminists angry over photographs of some female athletes. An especially sore spot was hit with the publication of a picture of U.S. Olympic swimmer Jenny Thompson. Thompson posed on a beach for the cover of Sports Illustrated wearing a swimsuit bottom, but nothing on top — covering her breasts with her fists.

Donna Lopiano, executive director of the Women’s Sports Foundation of Long Island, New York, told Newhouse News Service that “any exposure in a sports magazine that minimizes athletic achievement and skill and emphasizes the female athlete as a sex object is insulting and degrading.”

Olympic swimmer Ashley Tappin, who appeared in a provocative pose for the September issue of Maxim magazine said such criticism was “a bunch of bull. We’re healthy. We’re fit. And we’re not just cute; we do good things with our bodies. They are functional. Why not show them off?”

Some of the feminist critics don’t get out much since they seem to think semi-nude athlete photos is an exclusively female phenomenon. Mary Jo Kane, director of the Tucker Center for Research on Girls & Women in Sport at the University of Minnesota, told Newhouse, “All I am asking for is equal treatment. When Tiger Woods is on the cover of Sports Illustrated naked, holding a golf ball with the Nike swoosh in front of his genitals, I’ll be quiet.”

To my knowledge no serious male or female golf professional has been photographed semi-nude with or without golf balls — that sport takes itself a bit too seriously for such a photo. On the other hand, plenty of men from bicyclists to swimmers to (remember the poster of Mark Spitz clad only in a barely there Speedo and his gold medals?) to track and field athletes have been featured in semi-nude photos. In fact as a recent Sports Illustrated story noted, so many athletes have done the nude photo shoot that the whole genre is quickly becoming a dull cliche, since it’s no longer shocking.

In fact, despite the feminists attempt to ghettoize women, the bottom line is that sports coverage has always tended to sexualize athletes of all sexes. If Tappin and Thompson want to show off their bodies as Spitz and other males athletes have done, more power to them. The Kuwaiti politicians and radical feminists should mind their own business.

Source:

‘Olympics are too sexy’. The BBC, September 21, 2000.

Sex and the Olympics. Mark O’Keefe, Newhouse News Service, September 16, 2000.

One of the more fascinating sexual dynamics in the media is how it is usually perfectly acceptable to depict violence against men as humorous while using the same tactics against women brings an immediate protest reaction. This was highlighted over the weekend when NBC announced it was pulling a Nike ad featuring American runner Suzy Hamilton.

The ad is a parody of horror films and starts with Hamilton in a remote wilderness cabin when “a chainsaw-wielding masked maniac” arrives on the scene. The only problem is that Hamilton is obviously in much better shape than the would be killer and leaves him eating her dust. The final shot shows the killer out of breath, limping away and ends with the tagline, “Why Sport?” which is quickly answered with “You’ll live longer.”

Apparently when this ad aired, NBC’s switchboard lit up with outraged viewers. Some parents were apparently upset at the horror spoof showing in prime time where children might see it, but there also concern about the ad depicting violence against women. USA Today quoted David Lubars, president of ad agency Fallon McElligott, saying,

I have loved almost everything Nike has done in the past 15 years. But this spot I did not like at all, because of the violence against women. I am not a creative prude in any way, but that’s not funny to joke about. It had me squirming. It’s something you can’t kid about.

The interesting thing here is that Nike ran a parallel ad that USA Today doesn’t even bother to mention and which apparently nobody objected to. In the ad a skateboarder in a crowd city street is confronted by a sword-wielding gladiator who repeatedly tries to kill the young man. As in the Hamilton commercial, however, the teenage boy repeatedly dodges and evades the gladiator’s murderous schemes and the ad ends with the “Why Sport? You’ll live longer” line.

Violence or the threat of violence in a Nike ad is apparently completely acceptable when the commercial features a man, but not when it features a woman.

    Do the media give more attention to beauty or skill in women’s athletics. Dr. Precilla Choi, tells the BBC (Beauty beats brawn that the media spend too much time focusing on the former and not enough of the latter.

    Her comments are interesting, but they might carry more weight if she had actually performed any sort of objective study about media coverage of women in sports. Choi complains that the British media vilified tennis star Mary Pierce for beefing up in the gym prior to Wimbledon while giving the beautiful but far less talented Anna Kournikova an easy ride. Unfortunately this is just Choi’s subjective impressions of the coverage she happened to read — she should at least do some sort of objective look at stories on Pierce and Kournikova to back up her claims.

    I haven’t done such a study either, but my subjective impression is that in many American sports outlets the tendency is quite the opposite — Kournikova has been derided on a number of occasions for being a mediocre talent who parlays her beauty to get the sort of attention her game otherwise wouldn’t. One male sportscaster I saw ripping on Kournikova has vowed not to say her name on-air until she actually wins something (which means he’s probably never going to have to worry about stumbling over her last name).

    In fact a lot of the beauty pageant nonsense comes from either athletes or sports organizers who think that’s what a certain segment of the public wants to see rather than originating with the sports media. Much as there is a definite market for poster and calendars of provocatively posed male athletes (or for an older example, look at the way that Joe Namath marked himself).

    Personally, I find this sort of stuff annoying from a sports fan perspective, but the bottom line is that both men and women’s sports today have to appeal to a large audience outside of just sports fans.