Showing posts with label sport history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sport history. Show all posts
Monday, September 19, 2011
Women's Baseball League Reenacted in Wisconsin
Not a Title IX story per se, but someone just sent me an article in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel about historical reenactments of the All-American Girls' Baseball League that is too cool not to post. Yesterday, a group called the World War II Girls Baseball Living History League staged a game between the Kenosha Comets and Rockford Peaches in authentic uniforms and using the rules and equipment of the day. What a cool project -- makes me wish I lived in Illinois or Wisconsin!
Friday, June 25, 2010
Title IX Is Good for Stanford
In honor of Title IX's anniversary, here is a great article crediting Title IX for strengthening Stanford University athletics. After the law passed, some in the athletic department were resistant to expanding opportunities for women, but many of them changed their tune and eventually crediting women's programs for helping to improve moral and institutional pride. "Title IX was great asset for us," one former athletic director is quoted as saying. Coming from a school with 36 national championships in women's sports (more than any other school) and 94 championships in men's sports (second only to UCLA) -- that's saying a lot.
[h/t Helen]
[h/t Helen]
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Stolen Bases: Why American Girls Don't Play Baseball
The topic of women and baseball is one frequently mentioned on this blog; just recently we posted about the Indiana teenager whose lawsuit integrated high school baseball in her state. There's also been much buzz lately about the International Baseball Federation's campaign to make women's baseball an Olympic sport (see, e.g., here, here, and here). It seems like the perfect time to plug Jennifer Ring's Stolen Baseball: Why American Girls Don't Play Baseball (University of Illinois Press, 2009).
From Stolen Bases, I learned that contrary to popular mythology, baseball was not invented in Cooperstown by Civil War hero Abner Doubleday. Rather, it evolved from the British sport of rounders, which was played by males and females alike. But in the early 1900s, the efforts of Albert Spalding -- of sporting goods fame -- to promote baseball as the "national passtime" positioned the sport as a means of masculinization and colonialism. ("He articulated a mission for American baseball men: use the sport to teach men from nonwhite races and non-European cultures to become civilized and rational on a while American middle-class model.") In fact, Spalding himself promoted the Doubleday myth to make the sport more uniquely American and exclusively masculine.
Meanwhile, men invented softball as a way to play baseball indoors during the winter. But the indoor version was so obviously a "pale imitation" of the real thing that it could be inclusive of women without tainting the association of baseball and manhood. Early physical educators endorsed also softball as a sport for appropriate for girls, which, Ring explains, "solved the problem of how to get exercise to the average, nonathletic girl without running the risk of supporting 'games of strife' that make America's girls too competitive, brave, strong, and passionate about something not in the service of men and family. And it was played indoors, discretely out of the view of spectators." Moreover, promoting softball for girls had the effect of redirecting women's documented interest and enthusiasm for baseball into a different sport, insidiously marginalizing them from the "national" passtime. Softball has come a long way since its early days as a safe, indoor game; women can now play the sport for college glory and on the Olympic stage (until 2012, anyway). But as a sport it clearly doesn't rival baseball in terms of its cultural significance. Baseball is the sport that receives media attention, that provides the backdrop for family bonding and business meetings, that serves its players as role models for boys and girls, and that offers salaried employment to thousands of athletes.
The paradigm of baseball/boys: softball/girls is so ingrained as to be rarely questioned or challenged. There are no legal restrictions to women's participation in baseball, as Ring explains. Lawsuits invoking the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause lead to the integration of Little League in the 1970s, and Title IX's regulations do not allow schools to exclude girls from trying out for baseball as they do for some contact sports. It is simply a matter of "preference" that keeps girls and women interested in softball instead of baseball. Of course, after reading the history of both sports as presented by Ring, it is clear that this "preference" has been, and continues to be, constructed by social forces that operate with the interests of men, not women, in mind. The few girls who defy the gendered convention and play baseball in Little League and even into high school likely "choose" to switch to softball in order to play at the college level. Women could, collectively, assert their right to participate visibly in baseball, and for college and Olympic opportunities to do so. But because there is no critical mass of women in the sport, individual women have little incentive to sacrifice the opportunity to participate in the established sport of sotball in order to do so.
Ring's final point is that, despite channelling effect of softball, women do play baseball -- "you just have to look hard to find them." There are regional leagues playing in obscurity (Ring calls it an "underground") and a women's national team that plays under the aegis of USA Baseball, the sport's national governing body, in a biennial women's world cup (a literal "world series"). It won't be easy to create -- or even envision -- a world where girls and boys can make a free and legitimate choice between two different sports, but after reading Ring's Stolen Bases, I believe that support and exposure to the girls who already do or want to play the game is a necessary first step.
From Stolen Bases, I learned that contrary to popular mythology, baseball was not invented in Cooperstown by Civil War hero Abner Doubleday. Rather, it evolved from the British sport of rounders, which was played by males and females alike. But in the early 1900s, the efforts of Albert Spalding -- of sporting goods fame -- to promote baseball as the "national passtime" positioned the sport as a means of masculinization and colonialism. ("He articulated a mission for American baseball men: use the sport to teach men from nonwhite races and non-European cultures to become civilized and rational on a while American middle-class model.") In fact, Spalding himself promoted the Doubleday myth to make the sport more uniquely American and exclusively masculine.
Meanwhile, men invented softball as a way to play baseball indoors during the winter. But the indoor version was so obviously a "pale imitation" of the real thing that it could be inclusive of women without tainting the association of baseball and manhood. Early physical educators endorsed also softball as a sport for appropriate for girls, which, Ring explains, "solved the problem of how to get exercise to the average, nonathletic girl without running the risk of supporting 'games of strife' that make America's girls too competitive, brave, strong, and passionate about something not in the service of men and family. And it was played indoors, discretely out of the view of spectators." Moreover, promoting softball for girls had the effect of redirecting women's documented interest and enthusiasm for baseball into a different sport, insidiously marginalizing them from the "national" passtime. Softball has come a long way since its early days as a safe, indoor game; women can now play the sport for college glory and on the Olympic stage (until 2012, anyway). But as a sport it clearly doesn't rival baseball in terms of its cultural significance. Baseball is the sport that receives media attention, that provides the backdrop for family bonding and business meetings, that serves its players as role models for boys and girls, and that offers salaried employment to thousands of athletes.
The paradigm of baseball/boys: softball/girls is so ingrained as to be rarely questioned or challenged. There are no legal restrictions to women's participation in baseball, as Ring explains. Lawsuits invoking the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause lead to the integration of Little League in the 1970s, and Title IX's regulations do not allow schools to exclude girls from trying out for baseball as they do for some contact sports. It is simply a matter of "preference" that keeps girls and women interested in softball instead of baseball. Of course, after reading the history of both sports as presented by Ring, it is clear that this "preference" has been, and continues to be, constructed by social forces that operate with the interests of men, not women, in mind. The few girls who defy the gendered convention and play baseball in Little League and even into high school likely "choose" to switch to softball in order to play at the college level. Women could, collectively, assert their right to participate visibly in baseball, and for college and Olympic opportunities to do so. But because there is no critical mass of women in the sport, individual women have little incentive to sacrifice the opportunity to participate in the established sport of sotball in order to do so.
Ring's final point is that, despite channelling effect of softball, women do play baseball -- "you just have to look hard to find them." There are regional leagues playing in obscurity (Ring calls it an "underground") and a women's national team that plays under the aegis of USA Baseball, the sport's national governing body, in a biennial women's world cup (a literal "world series"). It won't be easy to create -- or even envision -- a world where girls and boys can make a free and legitimate choice between two different sports, but after reading Ring's Stolen Bases, I believe that support and exposure to the girls who already do or want to play the game is a necessary first step.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Documentary on 6-on-6 b-ball
Attention readers in Iowa: Iowa Public Television is airing what looks to be a very interesting documentary on girls' six-on-six basketball in the state. The first airing of More Than a Game was last night but it will be rebroadcast at 8:15 p.m. March 7 and on March 16 time TBA.
Times like these I miss living in Iowa. Perhaps some of our Iowa friends will tape it for us??
I would be interested to see the issues it addresses in comparison to Max McElwain's book The Only Dance in Iowa.
Times like these I miss living in Iowa. Perhaps some of our Iowa friends will tape it for us??
I would be interested to see the issues it addresses in comparison to Max McElwain's book The Only Dance in Iowa.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
The Encyclopedia of Title IX and Sports
The Encyclopedia of Title IX and Sports, edited by Nicole Mitchell and Lisa A. Ennis, was recently published by Greenwood Press. It does a great job shining the spotlight on female athletes and other leaders in women's sports. Reflecting an awareness that greatness often labors in obscurity--especially in women's sport--the authors included entries on women I had never heard of, but am happy to now know -- for example, Suzyn Waldman, the first woman to announce the play-by-play for a nationally televised baseball broadcast in 1995, Senda Abbott, PE director at Smith College who developed women's basketball in the 1890s, and Molly "Machine Gun" Bolin, the first payer to sign with the Women's Basketball League in 1978.
One slight criticism is that I would have liked a stronger explanation for why the editors chose to include biographical entries for individuals without stating their relationship to Title IX. In the preface, they say that they included women whose contributions to sport predated Title IX in order to provide a well-rounded look at women's sports, but this explanation is not satisfactory and undermines the book's utility as a Title IX resource. The authors could have made the case, for example, that Title IX influenced a cultural shift that helped create the opportunity in broadcasting that SuzynWaldman was the first woman to enjoy. They could have also suggested that Waldman's broadcast helped influence and inspire the people who were listening to support gender equity in sport, including Title IX. I think this is a missed opportunity -- the editors could have tied together the entries together by tying them more expressly to Title IX, creating a sense of interrelatedness and connectivity between early pioneers and contemporary stars, between advocates and beneficiaries.
Instead, many of the biographical entries read like a Who's Who in Women's Sport, a worthy project, to be sure, but that would have been a more accurate title. Further proving my point, is, I believe, the omission of Bernice Sandler from the biographical entries. Sandler's activism catalyzed Title IX's passage through Congress. That the Encyclopedia includes an entry for Trudy Ederle, who swam the English Channel in 1926, and not Sandler indicates that sports achievement was for the editors a stronger focus than Title IX (entries for Senator Birch Bayh and Gerald Ford notwithstanding).
Outside the context of its biographical entries, however, the Encyclopedia does a very good job profiling Title IX history and legal milestones. There are entries for every major judicial interpretation of Title IX's application to sport, as well as many of the advocacy organizations, like the Women's Sports Foundation and the National Women's Law Center, who work tirelessly to promote and protect Title IX. These entries, as well as the biographical entries described above, can serve as a useful starting point for students, journalists, or anyone starting down the research trail on issues relating to Title IX or to women's sports more generally.
One slight criticism is that I would have liked a stronger explanation for why the editors chose to include biographical entries for individuals without stating their relationship to Title IX. In the preface, they say that they included women whose contributions to sport predated Title IX in order to provide a well-rounded look at women's sports, but this explanation is not satisfactory and undermines the book's utility as a Title IX resource. The authors could have made the case, for example, that Title IX influenced a cultural shift that helped create the opportunity in broadcasting that SuzynWaldman was the first woman to enjoy. They could have also suggested that Waldman's broadcast helped influence and inspire the people who were listening to support gender equity in sport, including Title IX. I think this is a missed opportunity -- the editors could have tied together the entries together by tying them more expressly to Title IX, creating a sense of interrelatedness and connectivity between early pioneers and contemporary stars, between advocates and beneficiaries.
Instead, many of the biographical entries read like a Who's Who in Women's Sport, a worthy project, to be sure, but that would have been a more accurate title. Further proving my point, is, I believe, the omission of Bernice Sandler from the biographical entries. Sandler's activism catalyzed Title IX's passage through Congress. That the Encyclopedia includes an entry for Trudy Ederle, who swam the English Channel in 1926, and not Sandler indicates that sports achievement was for the editors a stronger focus than Title IX (entries for Senator Birch Bayh and Gerald Ford notwithstanding).
Outside the context of its biographical entries, however, the Encyclopedia does a very good job profiling Title IX history and legal milestones. There are entries for every major judicial interpretation of Title IX's application to sport, as well as many of the advocacy organizations, like the Women's Sports Foundation and the National Women's Law Center, who work tirelessly to promote and protect Title IX. These entries, as well as the biographical entries described above, can serve as a useful starting point for students, journalists, or anyone starting down the research trail on issues relating to Title IX or to women's sports more generally.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
A doll to teach about Title IX
The American Girl company is releasing a new doll (with accompanying books and accessories) next week. Each doll in the series comes from a particular time and place and the books about her reflect the period (and her "station" in life though I do not know how much the books address this).
The new American Girl is Julie Albright and she is from the 1970s. She is white and seemingly middle class. She has an Asian-American friend, Ivy, who will also be arriving in doll form next week. She lives in San Francisco, has divorced parents, celebrates Earth Day, listens to the Beatles, and goes out for the boys' basketball team.
Yes, the stories will specifically address Title IX and how it allows Julie to try out and play on the basketball team. The American Girl people specifically have cited the need for girls of the current generation to know that their ability to play sport was not always without struggle.
Until the books actually come out, we won't know how they address Title IX. But teaching some of its history may create a curious knowledge gap among the generations. At the Title IX conference in Cleveland last spring we heard educators and administrators ask about the lack of awareness the current college generation has about how women gained access to sports. I don't know how ubiquitous these dolls or the books are, but it's possible that many 7-12-year olds will know more about Title IX than some 20-somethings.
The new American Girl is Julie Albright and she is from the 1970s. She is white and seemingly middle class. She has an Asian-American friend, Ivy, who will also be arriving in doll form next week. She lives in San Francisco, has divorced parents, celebrates Earth Day, listens to the Beatles, and goes out for the boys' basketball team.
Yes, the stories will specifically address Title IX and how it allows Julie to try out and play on the basketball team. The American Girl people specifically have cited the need for girls of the current generation to know that their ability to play sport was not always without struggle.
Until the books actually come out, we won't know how they address Title IX. But teaching some of its history may create a curious knowledge gap among the generations. At the Title IX conference in Cleveland last spring we heard educators and administrators ask about the lack of awareness the current college generation has about how women gained access to sports. I don't know how ubiquitous these dolls or the books are, but it's possible that many 7-12-year olds will know more about Title IX than some 20-somethings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
