Why This “Golden Age” For Women’s Sports Still Isn’t Enough

Alexander Goot
The Cauldron

--

Progress in coverage of women’s sports doesn’t mean we should be silent — it suggests that we should redouble our efforts.

(REMEMBER TO LOG IN AND RECOMMEND THIS STORY)

After a few days of being put through the wringer by sportswriters, pundits, and yes, late night talk show hosts, Sports Illustrated NFL Analyst Andy Benoit eventually cried uncle, acknowledging in a series of tweets that his sexist dismissal of women’s sports was “senseless”, “ignorant”, and “extreme.”

Following Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler’s televised takedown of his comments, Benoit acknowledged the segment, and again expressed contrition for his remarks:

I have no reason to question the sincerity of Mr. Benoit’s apology. After the volume of criticism and negative attention sent his way, he certainly seems to have reconsidered his position, coming to the conclusion that despite his own viewing habits, tossing out an absurd generalization about the “worthiness” of women’s sports was both closed-minded and incredibly mean-spirited.

But when I first saw Mr. Benoit’s final tweet, I couldn’t help but think that in at least one major way, he learned the wrong lesson.

“Sticking to football now!”

No, Mr. Benoit… don’t you understand? That’s precisely how this whole mess got started in the first place.

I don’t want Benoit to “stick to football” any more than I want our nation’s athletic punditry to “stick to sports.” Think of all the brilliant work we’d lose if sportswriters were not allowed and encouraged to explore race, gender, sexuality, economics, politics, all the complicated and nuanced pieces of our culture that are reflected, endlessly, in the games we play. It is only by being ambitious, curious, and open-minded that anyone can really grow as a writer, as a thinker, as a person. Telling someone to “stay in their lane” serves neither a speaker, nor their audience.

So no, Andy, we don’t want you to stop talking about women’s sports. We just want you to do it smarter.

We want you to be open to the idea that female athletes are capable of incredible feats of athleticism. We want you to consider that the same story arcs and narratives that make men’s sports compelling also exist in the women’s game. We want you to realize that competition can still be riveting, even if a serve doesn’t travel quite as fast, or a drive doesn’t carry as many yards.

And… (listen closely, because this part is important), we want you to understand that even if you disagree, even if you stop, and watch, and consider, and you still decide that women’s sports aren’t your proverbial cup of tea, that doesn’t mean you’re right — and it certainly doesn’t mean you ought to disparage those who play, and those who feel differently.

The problem isn’t, and never was, that you didn’t want to watch the Women’s World Cup. The problem was a stubborn, reflexive, blanket statement about those that do. Because, as articulated brilliantly by Will Leitch, questioning the “worthiness” of a sport that undoubtedly excites and inspires thousands upon thousands of men and women says far more about you than it does about the game.

Which brings us to Wendy Parker.

On Monday, this site published “Why This Is A Golden Age For Women’s Sports On Television,” an attempt to discuss the way in which women’s sports are covered, and how that coverage has changed over the years. There may have been an interesting piece here, somewhere, because there are undoubtedly real issues worth exploring. How can women’s sports coverage continue to grow, despite undeniable economic pressures? How do we encourage the development of specialty outlets like espnW, while not allowing women’s sports to become isolated, marginalized, and excluded from “general interest” shows like SportsCenter, PTI, etc? How do we celebrate the strides that women’s sports have made in this country, while also acknowledging that there is a still a lot of room for improvement, and a lot of sexism ingrained in the industry?

These are all good, interesting, difficult questions, but unfortunately, none of them are honestly engaged, because the author would rather attack those who believe we can do better, and who are still unsatisfied with the present realities.

It’s hard to know where to begin, given that Parker’s analysis is flawed in so many ways.

For starters, many of her observations are flatly, demonstrably false. She writes that she “seldom see(s) much in the way of true substance about women’s sports on Deadspin,” ignoring their detailed breakdowns of every single team in the Women’s World Cup. The Bloguin network has featured extensive coverage on their soccer site, 32 Flags, throughout the tournament. Yahoo Sports’ Eric Adelson has filed a variety of columns, from Canada, on the U.S. Women’s National Team.

None of this, by the way, was particularly hard to find. These sites are not, as Parker claims, simply “aggregating anger”. They are putting their money where their mouth is, and if these organizations want to call out coverage when it falls short, such is their right.

Then there is the cynical, Randian, complete submission to the invisible hand of the sports media marketplace. Let’s be thankful for whatever crumbs on the table are offered when it comes to coverage of women’s sports, because that’s what the market will bear. After all, says Parker, these events are still “subject to market forces, consumer desires and, yes, television ratings.”

But it is silly, and ultimately destructive, to think that every programming decision must revolve entirely around ratings points, audience metrics, and what “moves the needle.”

Yes, sports media is a business. But to endlessly chase popularity at the expense of quality, and variety, is an inevitable race to the bottom. Mad Men never drew Nielsen numbers like The Walking Dead, but television was still a better, richer place for its existence. (Particularly given that we are obviously still fighting many of the same battles against chauvinism and male privilege that the show’s female characters crashed into on a weekly basis. Personally, I’d like to think that in the present day, Peggy Olsen would be clamoring for more roller derby coverage.)

Which brings us to yet another issue with Parker’s column, her bizarre issues with the feminist movement. Or, should I say, with “feminist grievance professionals,” “Centers for Feminist Research,” and “feminist bloggers.” Even though, in 2015, more and more women and men are coming to see the other F-word as a badge of honor, rather than a pejorative, Parker apparently disagrees.

What other explanation could there be for a piece that sets its sights on Jane McManus and Kate Fagan, two incredibly talented, accomplished journalists and commentators, whose only mistake was speaking openly about the marginalization of women’s sports, and women’s voices, in the industry?

And yes, this marginalization, this bias, these institutional barriers against women — they do exist. I know because I’ve seen them first hand during my time in the industry. I’ve walked into conference rooms filled with men, to brainstorm a show that will be put together by an overwhelmingly male staff, and which will, as the Messner and Cooky study quantitatively demonstrated, revolve almost entirely around male sports.

A product of the marketplace? Probably. A result of some deeply entrenched history? Undoubtedly. But that doesn’t mean we don’t have the right to challenge it, to speak up and question whether, with a little effort concentrated in the right places, we can all do a little bit better.

McManus, Fagan, and so many others, are fighting the good fight. And no, their arguments are not somehow less valid because they don’t themselves tune in to every women’s sporting event on the dial. It is, in fact, possible to have your own personal sports preferences, without it compromising your greater feelings about deep social inequalities.

But that is what these women put up with, and kudos to them, because it must feel like quite the uphill slog. Sometimes it seems that there is nothing more challenging, in our echo chamber society, than changing the status quo. If there are those brave enough to take on that battle, to advocate for more visibility, more opportunity, more progress; well, I don’t care what the odds are, I’d rather be on their side of the battle every single time.

Ultimately, the problem with Wendy Parker’s column was very similar to the problem with the Andy Benoit tweet that got this whole s***storm started. Neither one was trying to have a conversation, they were trying to end a conversation. For Benoit, women’s sports were simply not worthwhile. Thankfully, he seems to have reconsidered, but I hope he realizes that the solution is not simply to isolate himself in the things he loves, but to engage respectfully with those who carry different perspectives.

And then there is Parker, whose thesis, near as I can make one out, seemed to be that women’s sports have come an awfully long way, so now it’s time for everybody to pipe down. It’s a particularly confounding argument, given that so many of the advances she cites, that she seems genuinely happy about, came as a result of public outcry, of upheaval, of (shudder) feminist activism!

There’s a reason why hundreds of women’s sporting events are now televised on the Worldwide Leader. There are forces responsible for the slow, but tangible growth in the amount of time sports shows devote to female athletes. There are people, undoubtedly, who had to agitate for the founding of espnW, because why put money into women’s sports, really, when you know that the NFL, the NBA, and MLB would all be more lucrative?

Within her piece, Parker discusses her experience waiting for Brandi Chastain at the Rose Bowl following her World Cup winning penalty kick goal. I have little doubt that being at that game was an incredible experience not only for her, but for many other female journalists, and for female fans watching at home. Shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to create those same opportunities for the next generation of sportswriters and commentators? That means voting with your remote control, sure, but it also means asking, and yes, maybe even demanding that producers and editors treat these events with respect, and send the proper resources their way. It’s all well and good to claim that sports should be a business and not a cause. But the reality is that without those who stand up on its behalf, coverage of women’s athletics in a male dominated industry would undoubtedly settle back into an unpleasant and unsatisfying inertia.

Wendy Parker is right. There is no Title IX for sports media. Why do you think so many champions of women’s sports are determined to take the fight into their own hands? There is no law that mandates the kind of sports media women deserve.

Shame on anyone who tells them they don’t have the right to advocate for what they want.

--

--

Sports TV producer, writer at The Cauldron, The Comeback, Vice Sports, Sports On Earth. alexander.goot@gmail.com