Archive for the 'Sports' Category

A note on Title IX, proportionality, and why some girls aren’t playing… yet

I try to stay out of the ongoing arguments over Title IX, proportionality, and women’s sports. (I’ve mentioned Title IX once or twice) but I’d rather leave the defense of Title IX to those who are best equipped to do that — the good folks at the Women’s Sports Foundation.

But sometimes, the issues raised in the ongoing debate over proportionality (the principle that spending on men’s and women’s athletics by colleges should match the percentage of the respective genders in the student body) get me really interested. On Wednesday, the National Review published this piece by Jessica Gavora, who is associated with the nemesis of women’s sports, the College Sports Council.

Gavora is worried that having had great success in defending the proportionality rule in colleges (which has led many schools to cut certain men’s sports, like wrestling, in order to meet quotas), the advocates for Title IX are going to push for similar measures in high school. Gavora, like most conservatives, is a fierce believer in gender essentialism; she is convinced that girls “just don’t like sports” as much as boys do. Thus mandating equal funding for both sexes unfairly punishes boys for their “natural” competitive nature. After all, many conservatives seem to believe that most real women would rather be at the quilting bee (or shopping at the mall, or writing sonnets in imitation of Millay) than running, leaping, or striking at balls with their bats or their cleats.

Okay, so maybe that’s not fair. Here’s what Gavora says that I did find interesting:

The reason high schools are having trouble finding as many girls to play sports as there are boys clamoring to take the field is apparent to anyone who takes the time to look: Girls have more varied extracurricular interests than boys. Girls out-participate boys in every extracurricular activity — band, drama, debate, student government — every one, that is, except for sports. The extracurricular gender gap so favors girls that the Independent Women’s Forum calculated that if the government were suddenly to require the same gender quota for participation in other extracurricular activities that it does in sports, 36 percent of female choir members, 25 percent of female orchestra members, and 33 percent of female debaters would have to be eliminated.

The implication of this is clear: If high schools follow colleges and universities in instituting gender quotas in athletics, boys will be forced to pay the price in limited or eliminated opportunities. Girls are too busy doing other things after school to turn out at the same rate for sports.

Bold emphases mine. There’s a grain of truth in what Gavora says, though it’s hardly an argument against proportionality. I’m convinced that the primary reason some schools have a hard time getting enough girls to come out for sports is not because of a lack of interest, but because of a perception on the part of these over-scheduled, over-pressured young women that sports isn’t the best use of their time. I’ve written before about the colossal pressure we put on this generation of young women to be successful; all things being equal, it does seem clear that our daughters are more anxious to please and to achieve tangible signs of success than many of their brothers.

It’s not that girls are any less competitive, any less interested in getting sweaty and dirty, any less interested in victory than boys. But as they think about college applications, as they look to their parents and adults for cues as to how to succeed, they are more likely to be pushed towards student government, the debate team, the French Club, or massive amounts of community volunteering. That’s not a function of nature — that’s a calculation about what will look good. When applying to a selective university, these girls imagine that being president of the student body will look more impressive than being an all-league mid-fielder on the soccer team.

Not everyone wants to play sports, of course. There are plenty of boys (I was one in high school) who have no interest in being athletic, and I know perfectly well that there are lots of girls who find the idea of playing on a team to be a dreary one. But I know full well that those boys who are interested in playing are more likely to be encouraged to do so, while their sisters are more likely to be pressured to choose other, seemingly more “prestigious” extra-curricular activities.

Applying proportionality to the high schools will force a necessary cultural shift. We’re going to need to do more than demand that dollars spent reflect the percentage of girls and boys in the entire school. We’re going to have to challenge the “culture of perfection” in which so many young women labor, a culture which often discourages girls from putting their hearts, bodies, and souls into sports. (Courtney Martin writes very well about that culture, I reviewed her book here).

And we’re going to need to get some boys up off the damn couch, away from the video games, and into not only sports, but those activities now so often dominated by girls: debate, band, student government.

Bring on proportionality.

Loving the look, ignoring the sport: some thoughts on Allison Stokke: UPDATED

It was a busy weekend. My wife and I were able to spend some excellent time together, and on Saturday night — before heading out for some vegan Nepalese — I got some of the live coverage of the California high school track and field championships. I got to see the future Golden Bear running back, Jahvid Best, show some awesome speed in the 200; I got to see the remarkable Jordan Hasay (whose career I’ve been tracking since she was an eighth grader) lap most of the field on her way to another easy victory in the two-mile. Hasay is only a sophomore, and if she keeps her composure and stays injury free, she’s going to be a household name outside of the track world very soon.

Track doesn’t get much coverage in the mainstream press, even in the sports section. But Friday’s LA Times featured a front-page piece on Allison Stokke, a high school pole-vaulter from Orange County. Allison’s a fine vaulter (though she finished fourth at state on Saturday), and I’m happy to say she’s a future Cal athlete. But the article was about the attention Allison has drawn for her looks:

…intelligence and athletic ability aren’t what made her the most-watched athlete at the state high school track and field championships in Sacramento on Friday.

It was the Internet.

Stokke happens to be physically attractive, with shiny dark hair; flawless olive-colored skin; a wide, bright smile; and the toned 5-foot-7 frame of a well-trained athlete — and that’s why her name has become among the most searched on the Internet, making her a flashpoint for debate about 1st Amendment rights and who can post what about whom in cyberspace.

One day she was just another accomplished high school athlete. The next, she was the topic of media reports from London, Spain and Italy; her YouTube video got nearly 200,000 views; and photos of her were posted on college message boards around the country and linked to by bloggers around the world.

Keith Richmond, chief executive of Break.com, has a term he uses for the instantly famous: “e-lebrities.” His site bills itself as an “entertainment channel for guys fueled by user-created media.”

The Times, helpfully for those who don’t follow the sport, offers two pictures of Stokke, one vaulting, one just smiling for the camera. The latter is captioned “head-turner.”

On so many levels, this is so infuriating. For starters, it’s one thing for the Times to report on the unseemly obsession that many men (who probably know damn all about field events, and couldn’t name one of Stokke’s competitors) have with a high-school aged female athlete. It’s another thing for the Times article (written by Diane Pucin) to label Allison a “head-turner” and rhapsodize about her “flawless” skin. A whole lot of folks who didn’t know about Stokke before surely did internet searches for her after reading the paper last Friday. And how the heck can Pucin be sure that Stokke was the one all the fans were focused on? Can she not draw a distinction between drooling middle-aged men on the Internet surfing for T&A and serious aficionados of T&F?

I’m angry about the way in which the attention paid to Stokke marginalizes the many other athletes in the sport. Stokke is a great vaulter, but as any T&F fan will tell you, the best in the country right now is Palo Alto’s marvelous Tori Anthony, who this past weekend became the first high school girl in the United States to clear 14 feet in outdoor competition. Anthony has been consistently ahead of Stokke all year — except in camera attention. (To be fair, Stokke is no Anna Kournikova, the Russian tennis player who never won a significant tournament but made a fortune off her looks; a better comparison might be to Maria Sharapova, another Russian player who gets tremendous camera attention for her physical features but who also has two grand slam championships to give heft to her credentials.) Thirty-five years after Title IX, and women’s sports still get far less media attention and financial support than do boys’ athletics. Paying attention to one bright and talented athlete among many, merely because she is judged beautiful, isn’t healthy for women’s sports. And it certainly doesn’t leave many of the women who are competing in track and field feeling good.

I’m also angry about the way in which we legitimize the eroticising of adolescents. I’ve spent a fair amount of time at track and field events over the years, and I’ve noted not insignificant number of creepy lookin’ guys with cameras who seem unduly interested in taking pictures of just one or two female athletes. A few years ago, I was at the big Arcadia Invitational meet, watching the high jumpers. One girl was wearing a particularly tight outfit, and as she flopped over the bar, a man a few rows behind me frantically clicked his camera with its long lens. “Ve-ee–ee–ry ni-ii-ii-ce” he muttered excitedly at one point, studying the digital images he had just taken. Like the guys at football games more interested in snapping a photo of a cheerleader’s kick pants than the action on the field, there’s a small cadre of these characters who make the circuit at track events. They aren’t generally asked to leave unless they make trouble, and most of them don’t. (I’ve gotten into it with one of them, and nearly got myself thrown out of the meet for my trouble). The pictures they take do end up all over the internet, and they are usually much the same. (You can imagine what body parts they like to focus on.)

All things being equal, there are more white girls than young women of color doing vaulting and high jumping. While events like the long jump and the triple jump tend to be dominated by young African-American women, pole vaulters and high jumpers are largely drawn from the ranks of former gymnasts. Gymnastics lessons are priced for the middle and upper-middle classes, of course, and thus there ends up being an economic and even ethnic component to women’s track and field competition. We live in a culture that tends to erotically fixate on tall, slender, pretty white girls — and in track and field, they are disproportionately found in the pole vault and the high jump. Thus, there’s a classist, racist, and sexist element in this focus on Allison Stokke.

I like Allison Stokke. I’m a fan (especially since the smart gal has chosen to go to Berkeley). But I’m also a fan of Tori Anthony. I’m an even bigger fan of Hasay, and of Jamesha Youngblood, who brought home two state titles this past weekend. The latter is probably the most dominant female athlete in the West right now. But her pictures aren’t plastered all over the internet.

Straight men don’t love their male athletic heroes because they’re sexy. Teenage boys are quite capable of idolizing LeBron James or Peyton Manning without fantasizing about them. They fantasize about being them, which is very different. But we live in a culture where a great many men can only identify “hot” female athletes. As a sports fan, a teacher, and a mentor, I find that exasperating, disappointing, and even enraging. I can idolize a female athlete as easily as a male one. Growing up, Martina Navratilova and Bjorn Borg were my tennis heroes. I wanted to emulate both of them, and I was sensible enough to see that I had no reason to identify with Borg more merely because he was male. I had no more chance of being as good a tennis player as Borg than I did of waking up one day as a woman; even as a child, I knew that much. And so I could look up to, be inspired by, and want to emulate athletes of both sexes equally. And though as a lad I certainly had my athletic crushes (even a few with a sexual component), I never picked who to root for — of either sex — based on looks. Surely, I’m not that unusual a bear.

So google Allison Stokke. But then google Jordan Hasay, and Jamesha Youngblood. And remember that whatever they look like, they are simply young women of extraordinary ability and talent who deserve to be recognized on the basis of what they achieve alone.

UPDATE: Twisty at I blame the patriarchy has a long post on this subject with over 100 comments; she posted on Saturday, and I ought to have done a search to see who else had touched on the issue first. As usual at IBTP, the language is raw and eloquent. Twisty and I have, in the end, much the same view. Read it.

Men, masculinity, and sports talk: a reflection on the ESPN News ads

I’ve been getting a number of queries from folks who want to know my response to the recent spate of “death by veganism” stories in the national press. I will get there, I promise — I’m just a bit burned out from writing about food and animal rights issues. Soon.

I’m not burned out writing about men.

If you watch sports, you may have seen the ESPN News ads (here’s one at Google Video). The premise of the commercial is that without the help of ESPN News, a fella may find himself “talking out of his ass” when discussing sports. The ads feature groups of men gathered together playing cards, or at a barbecue; one makes a demonstrably false assertion about sports (such as “They finally got the college football rankings right.”) The other men look at him with a mixture of pity and harsh judgment, and the camera closes in on the buttocks of the poor lad who made the horrible error of speaking in ignorance. ESPN News — with its 24/7 coverage of American sports — is offered as the best prophylaxis against what I suppose we ought to call “homosocial humiliation.”

As a sports fan and a gender studies prof, I appreciate the candor of the ESPN ads. They knowingly and honestly point to the way in which a great many men use their knowledge of sports as currency with their male peers. Being able to discuss football, baseball, NASCAR, basketball knowledgeably is surely one of the most ubiquitous markers of masculinity in contemporary society. Men who don’t know each other well often use “sports talk” as a way of maintaining conversation and avoiding awkward silence. Sports talk becomes a social lubricant for an extraordinary variety of men; it has the happy ancillary benefit of uniting men of different social backgrounds and ethnic groups. In contemporary American culture, is there any topic that so quickly binds and unites men (who might otherwise be divided by class status, race, and so forth) than an enthusiastic discussion of sports?

I love sports. But before I loved them for their own sake, I loved them for the way in which they brought me closer to the men I admired. When I was growing up, I had no greater hero than my cousin Scott, eight years my senior. When he was in his teens and I was a child, I tried to follow him everywhere, no doubt much to his annoyance. In June 1975, I had just turned eight and Scott was not quite sixteen. We were at my family ranch in Northern California to begin a long vacation, and Scott showed up one day clutching a small black and white television. (We had no permanent TV at the ranch in those days; now we’ve got the satellite dish and accompanying gadgets.)

As any Bay Area basketball fan will tell you, 1975 was the year the Golden State Warriors won their only NBA title to date. And Scott wanted to watch the final match at the Ranch. We huddled in one corner of the old house, watching the tiny, fuzzy images on the screen. I remember hearing names I had never heard before — Al Attles, Rick Barry. I remember Golden State won, beating the Washington Bullets (now Wizards). But mostly, I remember that I got to sit next to my hero Scott. I remember that Scott, normally taciturn, was quite vocal. I realized quickly that in order to get Scott to talk to me, I had to ask him questions about something that meant something to him. So I asked him about the Warriors, about basketball, about the game we were watching. Patiently and at far greater length than on any subject, Scott explained the NBA to me. And I was hooked.

For years and years in my childhood, sports were the way in which I connected with my male cousins (and my dear late Uncle Peter, whom I wrote about a few weeks ago.) I learned the rules of every major American sport by sitting next to them on the couch. And I learned that I could have a much better conversation with them if I read the sports page in the newspaper or listened to the sports report on the radio before a family gathering. I grasped quickly that being able to talk about sports was the admission price to the masculine community I craved.

As an adolescent and an adult, I discovered that I cared about sports in their own right. I learned that there were some sports I didn’t care for (baseball), and some about which I was downright passionate (college football). I discovered I had an interest in sports that weren’t particularly popular with other men (I folllow women’s college softball, and I keep very close tabs on high school and collegiate cross-country). I became a soccer fan, and find that when I am in England (or among soccer aficionados in the States), that knowledge serves me well. And I’m not afraid to admit that I don’t know much of anything at all about hockey or NASCAR, and don’t have any desire to learn. In other words, slowly but surely, what I enjoy watching and talking about has become increasingly my own and correspondingly less about connecting with other men.

But in my relationships with men today, I still use sports as a way to build up a connection with fellas who might otherwise be guarded and unapproachable. And believe me, I’ve used this in many places. When my wife and I were honeymooning in South Africa a couple of years ago, we had a rather truculent tour guide for one portion of the trip. I discovered he was a cricket fan, and the next morning, I frantically scoured the newspapers for the latest cricket news. I didn’t want to impress him with my very limited understanding of that bizarre game, but I did want to be able to ask him intelligent questions. Once I started asking him about the Proteas (the South African national team), he lit up with pleasure. For the remainder of our time with him, he was especially warm and friendly towards me and my wife. I didn’t think of what I was doing as manipulative, because I wasn’t trying to “get” anything from him. I just wanted to build a bond with another man, and in this case, cricket was the way to do it.

It saddens me, of course, that so many men find it difficult to connect with each other over anything other than sports. It saddens me that those men who aren’t interested in sport are either forced to fake it (in which case, they risk being “revealed as an ass-talker”, the fate of which the ESPN ads warn), or they are simply frozen out of these vital male-bonding rituals. And of course, many women experience exactly the same thing. I know a great many women who love sports, and for some, their love of sports began as a way to grow closer to their fathers or older brothers. That’s not to say that many women don’t love sports in their own right, but it’s surely true that an exceptional number of girls realize early on in life that sitting on the couch with their dads watching baseball, hoops, or footy is an excellent way to connect with a man who is otherwise emotionally unavailable.

Though I use sports talk to connect with men (often in the hopes of subtly moving the conversation to deeper topics), I am also careful, when I’m in groups of guys, not to let sports talk become a yardstick for measuring masculinity. I try and be very good about sensing which men are and which men aren’t interested in talking about whether Barry Bonds belongs in the Hall of Fame, or the relative merits of Peyton Manning and Tom Brady, or whether Tottenham’s acquisition of Gareth Bale can finally lift them to the Champions League. Too often, men use sports knowledge as a way of establishing a hierarchy, a rigid social structure in which those whose opinions that are grounded in “fact” and expressed most loudly trump those whose views seem less certain, whose insights are less clear.

I love sport. I like talking about sports — some of the time. And I very much want to help my brothers move beyond the use of sports talk as the primary way of forming bonds with each other. I’m saddened by how limiting that reliance on sports is; it’s ultimately a pretty thin glue to bond men together. I’ll still use sports talk as a way to disarm men (before I subtly foist my radical pro-feminist, evangelical Protestant, vegan animal rights agenda upon them), but I always remember that sport is a starting topic, not a finishing one. Sports talk can serve as a promising trailhead into much deeper, and much richer conversation. But it will only be that trailhead if we’re willing to push.

Update:

Here’s the confession (you know how much my Puritanical soul loves to wax eloquent on my myriad shortcomings). There are times, especially when I’m coming somewhere to speak to a group of anti-feminist men about feminism, that I enjoy surprising them with my enthusiastic willingness to talk sport. People who only know me by reputation — or from my blog — often expect someone who fulfills a stereotype, and the stereotype of pro-feminist men as effeminate (and hence not interested in sports) is fairly entrenched. To the extent that it’s fun to break stereotypes, that’s cool, but I must be very careful to not reinforce the notion that those men who are “sports-literate” are thus more deserving of being taken seriously by their peers.

Killing Kangaroos and rejecting Beckham

I’m saddened to learn that shoe manufacturer Adidas has successfully lobbied the California State Senate to permit the importation of kangaroo skin for use in the production of soccer (football) boots. Here’s the Los Angeles Times story

After years of assertive lobbying by Adidas, the California Senate voted Tuesday to legalize the import and sale of kangaroo skins so that soccer players can buy shoes made from the marsupials’ coveted leather.

Of the 55 species of kangaroos in Australia, six are commercially harvested and exported, and would be allowed if the bill is approved by the Assembly and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Those species include red and eastern and western gray kangaroos.

Animal activists are fighting the proposal, which they say will lead to the deaths of endangered kangaroos because hunting is done at night and the species are difficult to differentiate. They also object to the rules of kangaroo hunting, which dictate that if a mother is killed the baby must be killed as well.

PETA’s press release is here, and it notes that David Beckham chooses to wear synthetic leather rather than anything made from animals. After being contacted by animal rights organizations, Beckham (who had not realized his Adidas Predator boots were made from kangaroo hide) chose a different shoe to wear.

The Times article notes that Beckham’s new team, the Los Angeles Galaxy, joined Adidas in lobbying the state Senate for passage of the kangaroo skin bill. Given that their future star has rejected kangaroo hide, and has gone on record explicitly against other footballers wearing kangaroo kit, this seems a poor choice on the part of the Galaxy.

The bill, SB 880, now goes to the state assembly. Californians, please contact your assembly member. (Contact info, and info on how to figure out who represents you, is on the left hand side of the page.)

A note on language, misogyny, and Don Imus

I have very little to add to the discussion of the Don Imus controversy. I’ve been reading what everyone else has to say, and though many wise and good points are being made by many wise and good people, a couple of posts I’ve seen jump out at me.

From last Friday, here’s dNA’s piece at Halfrican Revolution: White Supremacy Outsources its Vocabulary. (H/T Pam at Pandagon).

It is impossible to understand our current ease with sexism in the public sphere, especially towards black women, especially over the issue of hair, without discussing the spread of Hip-hop… Hip-hop has granted black men greater access to white women. It has also granted white men greater access to black women; make no mistake, your teenage son, little brother, or husband is tuning into the “booty channel” (also known as Black Entertainment Television) when you’re not home. The attitude towards women in mainstream Hip-hop is that women are commodities, an attitude that mimics attitudes towards gender in greater American society, a fact made obvious by any beer commercial.

What has happened here is a subtle, unspoken agreement between black and white men that black women and their minds and bodies are owed as little respect as the minds and bodies of white women. This happens even as overt racism towards black men in the public sphere becomes more and more accessible. This happens because on some level, black men know we cannot be seen as men unless we effectively subjigate, commodify, and exploit black women.

A black man like dNa can say that in a way that I can’t.

Listening to right-wing talk radio yesterday, I heard a few folks doing their best to deflect attention from Imus by attacking the degrading portrayal of women in hip-hop culture. I winced as I heard that, largely because the hosts (John and Ken here in Los Angeles) seemed less interested in defending the dignity of black women, and more in absolving a fellow white male talk-show personality. But dNa’s words carry more weight, as do Pam Spaulding’s at Pandagon. This isn’t merely because dNa and Pam are African-American, though of course their heritage does give their words a special and undeniable legitimacy. It’s also because in the end, the most effective critiques of any cultural movement must come from within. When progressive black bloggers are willing to draw a connection between Imus’ “nappy-headed hos” remark and the larger issue of the degradation of black women in both hip-hop and mainstream culture, then we’re arriving at a teachable moment.

Audre Lorde, surely one of the great feminist writers of the last half-century, famously remarked that “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.” Words like “bitch”, “ho”, and yes, “nigger” (in any of its myriad spellings) are words first uttered by the masters; they are words that cannot be redeemed. It is a terrible illusion to imagine that authentic empowerment can ever come by appropriating the language of the oppressor. The attempt by some feminists to use words like “bitch” and “cunt” in a positive light only ends up giving misogynists a sense of entitlement to keep on using them. The ubiquitous use of racial slurs by hip-hop artists gives the Don Imuses of the world cover. It gives them permission. It makes the utterly indefensible seem less egregious, largely because hip-hop has done such a good job of deadening our sense of outrage. (This of course, is antithetical to what hip-hop was supposed to do: I may know more about the history of bluegrass than of rap, but wasn’t hip-hop supposed to arouse righteous indignation? Wasn’t it supposed to be a soundtrack of liberation?)

Unlike most folks weighing in on this controversy, I was a fan of Rutgers basketball long before their wonderful Final Four run. I’ve been a C. Vivian Stringer fan for years. From a basketball standpoint, I consider her one of the five greatest coaches in the history of the women’s game (my other four: Summitt, Auriemma, Barmore, Conradt. Goestenkors needs a few more years). She’s certainly the greatest coach currently working who hasn’t yet won a national title. I loved her team’s improbable run through the tournament; the defensive job they did on LSU in the semi-final was a thing of beauty.

I watched the tape of the Rutgers press conference yesterday. I saw and heard the pain in these young women’s voices. And I saw and heard that this multi-racial team was hurt far more by the “ho” word than by “nappy-headed.” Two quotes that stuck out for me:

One player, Kia Vaughn, said that unless a “ho” is defined as someone who has achieved a lot, Imus misspoke.

“I’m not a ho,” the sophomore said. “I’m a woman and someone’s child. It hurts. It hurts a lot.”

..(Essence) Carson, like her teammates, also talked about good that could come from the controversy.

“We can finally speak up for women. Not just African-American women, but all women,” the junior said.

Not just African-American women, but all women. Good on you, Essence Carson. Good on you for your dignity and your athletic prowess, and good on you for seeing that at its core, the real evil in Imus’ words lay in their misogyny.

I don’t much care whether Imus is fired or not. But during his two-week suspension (which certainly seems minimally appropriate), let me suggest we all go through a similar period of self-reflection. Let’s think about the words we use, the music we listen to, the casual insults we allow our friends to slip out unrebuked. Let’s suspend — for the length of the Imus suspension — the use of any media that uses degrading, hostile, soul-crushing language towards women.* Let’s not allow the skin color or the sex of the artist who uses the language to act as a shield from our criticism. What goes into our ears, what we sing along to in the car — it helps define who we are. We cannot compartmentalize; we cannot claim to live lives of justice and kindness while listening to a soundtrack of objectification and exploitation. We are what we eat, we are what we wear, we are what we listen to and watch.

And if you’ve never done it, consider going to support your local college women’s basketball team next year. At most levels, it’s more entertaining than the men’s game (and I’ve watched a hell of a lot of hoops in my day).

*NOTE: I’m making this commitment with my own musical choices. I just took the Guns n’ Roses song One in a Million off my Itunes shuffle. I have no love for hip-hop, but I love me some Axl Rose. Still, if we’re gonna lead by example…

Basketball and weightlifting: two women’s sports notes

A couple of women’s sports notes.

So much for women’s college basketball being less competitive than men’s! That old lie got put to bed these past few days. The lowest men’s seed to advance to the Sweet Sixteen was number 7 UNLV; the women have already sent a pair of double-digit seeds (Florida State, a #10, and everybody’s cinderella, Marist, a #13), to the regional semifinals. This is great for the women’s game, even though it shot my bracket. (I was surprised that Stanford lost, but as a good Cal alum, shed no tears for them.)

I’m late to the story that I read about both at Feministing and Feministe: Florida Girls Lift Weights, and Gold Medals. In recent years, competitive weightlifting for girls (as well as boys) has become very popular in the Sunshine State:

Extracurricular club programs for girls have sprung up around the country since women’s weightlifting became an Olympic sport in 2000. But Florida, with 170 high school teams that have produced two Olympians and several dozen world team members, has “set the gold standard” for the sport, said Rodger DeGarmo, director of high performance and coaching for USA Weightlifting in Colorado Springs, the governing body that oversees Olympic lifting.

It’s a very positive article, and here’s hoping the sport catches on.

I have friends of both sexes who are serious lifters. The sport has never appealed to me, largely because I generally like to minimize my indoor workouts. But what I honor about lifting weights is its fundamental democracy: anyone, at any size, can become a very strong lifter if they work at it. There are few other sports in which “God-given natural talent” takes such an obvious backseat to persistence and determination. It’s much, much easier to make a weak young person into a strong lifter than a slow young person into a fast sprinter! This doesn’t mean weightlifting is easy: it is (not literally) often backbreakingly difficult; it takes time and effort and concentration; it takes mental toughness. More than most sports, doing it well involves intense visualization; it teaches those who practice it to see themselves completing the task before they actually attempt it.

One vital feminist task, of course, is teaching women of all ages — particularly the young — that their bodies belong to them. They are not baby-machines-in-training, nor are they objects to visually (or physically) gratify men. Building strength and muscle serves to undermine the ugly cultural fetish for young women’s bodies that appear emaciated, frail, vulnerable. Lifting ever-greater weights gives young women a tangible sense of physical success; they can measure their body’s progress in terms that have nothing to do with beauty or sex appeal or reproductive potential.

Leigha, the Spruce Creek senior, said she loved the competitive aspect of lifting.

“It’s a rush, it really is,” she said. “We have boards in our weight rooms with the names of all the record breakers, and you’re thinking about how bad you want your name on that record for everybody to see.”

I like reading that.

After all, “weight” is always a feminist issue. Since the 1920s, generations of young American women have desperately tried to lose it, even as we live in a culture that celebrates “weight” and “heft” as attributes of power and influence. We speak of folks “throwing their weight around”; we note that the words of someone we admire “carry a lot of weight.” To call someone a “lightweight” is never praise; it suggests superficiality, incompetence, immaturity. Outside of the discussion of women’s bodies, “weight” almost always connotes something positive and powerful.

Weightlifters, like dieters, are very concerned with numbers. But while the goal of the dieter is generally to become smaller and smaller, lighter and lighter, the goal of the lifter is to push more and more, to see the numbers rise rather than fall. As with wrestling, competitive lifting offers different weight classs to its participants; a team that wants to be successful thus must have a group of girls with very different body types. More so than virtually any other sport, this encourages coaches and teachers to recruit a wide variety of girls.

I’ll be the first to admit that I’m an exercise fanatic. My desire to share the gospel of fitness, however, is not motivated by a desire to get everyone to start chasing an unattainable physical ideal. We live in a culture in which most of us are alienated from our bodies, often ashamed of our bodies. The best kinds of fitness activity teach us to reconnect with our bodies, to love our bodies, to experience the power and pleasure our bodies can bring to us.

And in achieving this goal for high school-age women, Florida seems to be ahead of everyone else.

Tennyson and Sharon Olds, Ulysses and Telemachus: a very long post about endurance athletes, independence, and the single body alone in the universe against its own best time

Another busy Monday morning finds me sitting at the messiest desk in the Western Hemisphere. Really, it’s appalling — Clif bar wrappers and old tests, coffee-stained handouts and framed wedding pictures all jostling together. Merely to type a post or an e-mail requires blowing the crumbs off the keyboard. (I need a new keyboard annually, thanks to the food and drink spills).

I’m thinking this morning about a dear relative of mine. Because it’s a private family matter, I won’t share much, but I will say that this relation is a man in his mid-seventies, now suddenly frail and weak and battling serious illness. Though his physical diagnosis isn’t immediately terminal, he seems to have lost much of his will to live. I am praying and meditating for him daily.

This man and I have had a lot in common for many years. My relation was the first endurance athlete I ever knew; he started marathoning in the 1970s, back when the sport was first becoming popular. He ended up doing more than 80 marathons, as well as several Ironman distance triathlons (including a strong finish in the Hawaii Ironman back in the very early years of the event.) He was a great bear of a man, not terribly fast but with a tremendous will to compete and and a tremendous capacity to live with physical pain — two things any serious endurance runner must have. He gave me lots of good advice when I first became a distance athlete, and in many ways, has been an athletic role model for me for more than twenty-five years.

What he and I share, more than a love of sport itself, is an intense desire to maintain our own autonomy and to pursue self-perfection through the endless disciplining of our own flesh. So much of our identity is built around the very satisfying thought that we do things other people can’t do. While others sleep in, we push our bodies to their limits, always seeing what else we can do to improve. And while there is much that is praiseworthy about this tremendous longing to achieve maximum fitness and performance, there’s a dark side to all of this as well. At its worst, this addiction to endurance sports can isolate us from others, cause us to ignore social and familial responsibilities, lead us to prioritize logging miles rather than spending time with those who love us most.

Berkeley-born Sharon Olds’ most famous poem is surely the marvelous Sex without Love. I loved it the first time I read it, largely because it was as close to a perfect description of how my companions and I lived out our erotic lives in our twenties as anything I’ve ever seen. And as a man who was both sexually promiscuous and athletically obsessive, I recognized myself at once in the closing lines:

They do not
mistake the lover for their own pleasure,
they are like great runners: they know they are alone
with the road surface, the cold, the wind,
the fit of their shoes, their over-all cardio-
vascular health–just factors, like the partner
in the bed, and not the truth, which is the
single body alone in the universe
against its own best time
.

I long ago surrendered my sexuality to God, and gave up “sex without love.” I have received indescribable gifts in return. But I struggle, Lord how I struggle, not to think of myself as going through life as a solitary runner, alone in the world, always racing against my own best time. The danger for distance athletes, both world-class and amateur, is that we can become profoundly selfish. Beating “our own best time” becomes the one meaningful battle in our lives. We discipline ourselves with restrictive diets, we beat up our joints on endless hills, we drag ourselves out of bed hours before dawn to do solitary combat on the roads and trails and treadmills. And if we’re not careful, we mistake the pursuit of our own individual excellence with authentic virtue.

Authentic virtue is never selfish, as Aristotle and a hundred other wise folks have pointed out. Authentic virtue is about balancing one’s own need to endlessly recreate and improve with one’s responsibility to the world at large. If our running gives us great pleasure, but leaves us so drained and self-absorbed that we are less available for our loved ones and our community, then we’re not being virtuous. We have to make choices, and in the past couple of years, I’ve made that choice. Many folks think I work out a lot (14-20 hours per week). But that’s nothing compared to what I would do if I gave up more of my outside commitments! Oh, how I long to take eighteen good months and train for a solid 100-miler. But running 120 miles per week would take too much from my wife, too much from my chinchillas, too much from my students and my youth group, my seven classes, my mentees, my colleagues.

The greatest danger for distance athletes, however, isn’t that we become selfish. The greatest danger, one that I see in the life of my ailing relation, is that we become so enraptured by our own physical capabilities that we begin to believe we are radically autonomous. Our bodies do such incredible things, and bring us such pride and satisfaction, that we start to think we’re indestructible. We become particularly loath to rely on others, jealously, often pridefully guarding our own independence. The phrase “our bodies, ourselves” takes on a radically different meaning: our identity as human beings becomes enmeshed with our sense of what our bodies can do.

We came into this world naked and helpless. We had no control over our flesh; we were diapered and dressed and spanked and bathed and fed on another’s schedule. We wailed and flailed, but for the first few years were utterly incapable of meeting our own needs. And unless we are taken young and suddenly, most of us will leave the world in that same way. Even if we retain the ability to use the toilet and feed ourselves up until the end, old age will rob us, sooner or later, of our precious independence. If we’ve spent fifty or sixty years building up a personal myth of indestructible autonomy, “alone in the universe against our own best time”, we’re going to be absolutely devastated by the slow surrenderings we will inevitably have to make as we age.

I’ve posted a bit about my Dad lately. His dying was relatively quick last year; he got the terminal diagnosis in mid-April and he passed on on June 22. A gentle man, not in the least concerned with “personal best times” or “faster and farther”, he surrendered himself easily to his caregivers. He was uncomplaining as he slowly lost his abilities to do for himself what he had done for nearly seven decades. He maintained his dignity and his sense of humor, and above all, he maintained his sense of self even as his body shriveled. My father, a philosopher by training and a wise soul by natural temperament, knew that he was not his body. While he had a hard time accepting the soul as separate from the flesh, he knew that his “Hubertness” was not defined by what his muscles and bones could do. That knowledge gave him the strength to surrender gently when his time came.

My ailing relative, my fellow endurance athlete, is not going so gently. He’s raging against the dying of the light. For him, the “light” remains connected to what his body can do, and losing those capabilities is devastating for him in a way that it wasn’t for my far-less competitive father. As for me, I have had both these dear men as role models all of my life. Though there is much I owe to my Dad, and though I love him still with all my heart, I did not get my manic restlessness from him. That longing I have to climb the next mountain, and the next, and the next, until I reach the final summit from which there is no descent — that obsession comes from somewhere else. My cousin has it in him; his were the first pair of eyes in which I saw what I so often see when I look in the mirror: the sense that life is a constant struggle against weakness, against darkness, against our own sense of limitations. And when at last our limitations overwhelm us… it’s hard.

On the list of the hundred most famous English-language poems, Tennyson’s Ulysses must rank near the top. I first read it in college in a frosh Comp Lit class. I loved it then and love it now, and remember fighting with my Marxist TA who insisted that it was the “Ulysseses” of the world who were responsible for colonialism and imperialism and slavery. She hated the poem (and hated Tennyson) and wanted her students to mock the sentiments within it. I nearly lost my temper, so eager was I to defend both the poet and his protagonist. And I think of Ulysses often as I think of my dear cousin, fighting so hard in his hospital bed.

Ulysses was a lousy husband, to put it mildly. He wasn’t much of a king either, if we take Tennyson’s view — he has no interest in doing what his son Telemachus does:

…by slow prudence to make mild
A rugged people, and through soft degrees
Subdue them to the useful and the good.
Most blameless is he, centred in the sphere
Of common duties
, decent not to fail
In offices of tenderness…

Ulysses is not centered in that sphere of common duty; he hears a different call:

How dull it is to pause, to make an end,
To rust unburnished, not to shine in use!
As though to breathe were life!

It’s whopping hubris to compare oneself and one’s relations to the ancient heroes, of course. But when I think of my father, I think of one very gentle, loving, devoted Telemachus. My God, Dad was “strong in the sphere of common duties”! Though he was not a political man or a natural leader, he was a pillar of his family and of the broader community; the hundreds and hundreds of mourners at his memorial service were all touched and moved by him. In my life, especially since his death, I’ve sought to become more and more of the sort of man he was. Kindness and grace came naturally to my father, and I long to emulate him in those virtues.

But my cousin and I — like so many of my friends in the endurance running community — have the restlessness of a Ulysses. We are the ones who find “how dull it is to pause, not to shine in use.” And though we don’t kill monsters, we devote our lives to killing our own limitations. Contentment scares us; complacency unnerves us; we embrace domesticity with often considerable unease. We are capable of common duties, but we’re not centered there. Our center is always a mile further up the trail.

Near the end of the poem, Ulysses says:

Though much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are…

That which we are, we are. I am thinking this morning of a man I love and admire, lying in his bed four hundred miles from here. A man who has climbed mountains, swum through oceans, run marathons on five continents. For him, the great question is finding the will to live now that so much has been taken. The question for him is whether “much abides”, and whether or not what remains is enough to continue to live.

Those with the spirit of Telemachus have an easier time letting go. They give up the bicycle, the running shoes, the car keys. They may mourn the loss of their independence, but they haven’t staked their identity to their autonomy the way those with the spirit of Ulysses have. And as one who struggles to reconcile his inner Telemachus with his inner Ulysses, I have much to think about this morning.

Viva Ireland

Not a lot of basketball upsets here in the States, but a St. Paddy’s day miracle at the cricket world cup has me stunned.

My late father played on a club team when he was in grad school at Berkeley. They toured California playing teams made up of folks from every corner of the Commonwealth. He was a bowler, and a fairly decent one. He gave it up when he came to Santa Barbara to teach and had no one to play with.

Though I understand the game better than 90% of Americans, that’s not saying much. I still watch cricket on TV when I’m in the UK and am forced to whisper urgently to someone nearby, “Uh, what just happened?”

UPDATE: Pakistan’s English-born coach died this morning, hours after the match, of apparently natural causes. The loss to Ireland can’t have helped.

NCAA pairings: UPDATED

My women’s final four: Purdue, Tennessee, Duke, and my longshot, Ohio State Stanford. Duke wins it all, led by my hero, Allison Bales.

Updated super long shot for the women: UC Riverside.

My men’s final four: UCLA, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and, my sentimental longshot, Virginia. North Carolina wins it all again.

Updated super long shot for the lads: Stanford. It pains me to say it.

And I note that in a sport I follow with great interest, women’s softball, the rankings are very topsy-turvy. Tennessee #1? UCLA way down at #12? Cal barely in the top 25? Things are not as they were.

A very long post about Los Angeles, an Eagles song, nationalism, history, self-reinvention and the “club versus country” debate

A week ago Sunday, my buddy Leo and I ran up the El Prieto trail and the Brown Mountain fire road. Though we’re usually part of a larger group, we were alone that day. Leo was recovering from a marathon, and I was feeling well-rested, so I was actually able to keep up with him for a change. (In his late 50s, Leo still regularly runs marathons just above the three hour mark and has finished his share of 50 and 100-mile races).

We talked about books, history, ideas. When I run with some friends, we talk about love and marriage and family; when I run with others, I argue politics or theology. A few friends, like Leo, are interested in all of these topics and more. In an early morning chill, we began by reflecting together on the burden of the past.

Leo was born just after the Second World War into a Polish refugee family. He was raised in West Germany. Much like my late father, a dozen years his senior, Leo has that sense that many war refugees have — a sense of never quite belonging, a sense that perhaps at any moment, he might have to pack his bags and leave again. My father, born in Vienna, raised in rural Berkshire, spent nearly fifty years of his life in California without ever truly feeling at home here. He didn’t feel fully at home in Austria or England either. Leo and my Dad knew each other, and were fond of each other. When I got married a year and a half ago, they spoke German together at our wedding.

But we didn’t just talk about my Dad or about Leo’s similar sense of not quite belonging. We talked about the San Gabriel Mountains we both love so much. As we neared the Brown Mountain summit, I said to Leo “Isn’t it interesting to think we are the only members of our family ever to be here? None of our ancestors ever stood where we are standing right now.”

“Yes”, Leo replied, “it’s liberating.”

And I’ve been thinking about that for nine days now. I’m a historian by trade, of course; I have devoted my scholarly and professional life to the study of the past. I’m a dual national, holding a UK passport, and am a regular visitor to the land that gave my father’s family shelter and the land my brother calls home. I love to visit what some folks call “old places”, filled with a rich sense of history. When I tramp through the hills of Devon, or run through the streets of Vienna, I feel as if I am surrounded by ghosts. Not evil spirits, mind — just an extraordinary cloud of witnesses of all who have lived and died in these places. And when I am in those places where my ancestors lived, I feel the weight of their fears and their hopes and their expectations all around me. It’s not always unpleasant, but it’s always there.

Even when I go home to Northern California, I feel surrounded by a sense of family history. On my mother’s side, my family came to the Bay Area for the Gold Rush more than a century and a half ago. We’ve had a country place in the hills northeast of San Jose since Rutherford Hayes was president; by the standards of this state, that’s some ancient history. My maternal great-grandfathers both went to Berkeley, and when I was a student at Cal nine decades later, I felt them all around me. Now, don’t get me wrong, sometimes it is a wonderful feeling to feel so connected to a place. But at other times, it is exhausting in ways I find difficult to describe.

What makes me a Los Angeleno in my mindset is my fascination with self-reinvention. I love that I am surrounded by hundreds of thousands, even millions of people, who call somewhere else their truest home — but have nonetheless come here, to this basin with its beaches and valleys and hills — in order to start something new. They’ve come here to escape the burdens and obligations of the past, the sort that linger in the old places even after the old people have gone. They’ve come here to escape the “things are the way they are” mindset. They’ve come here to replace the fatalism and superstition of the old places with a relentless optimism about their own potential and the possibility of global transformation. They’ve come here to get away from the ghosts of Holocausts and World Wars and rigid class distinctions. They’ve come here to run on mountain trails upon which their ancestors never set foot.

(I’m listening to the Eagles “The Last Resort” right now on Itunes. Appropriate.)

As I’ve said, I love to visit the old places. My doctorate is in medieval history, for heaven’s sake; I spent many happy hours doing research in the shadow of my favorite building in the western world, Durham Cathedral. But it’s not just the damp and gloom of old Europe that makes me glad I live in this sprawling, metastasizing megalopolis. It’s the sense that I always get in the old places that humans and animals are limited and constrained by the story of the past. (As the Eagles sing in the song to which I’m listening: “where the Old World shadows hang heavy in the air.”) Their sense of themselves is related not only to place, but to the past story of the place. And just below the surface, there often bubbles a raw xenophobic nationalism that I find fascinating but repugnant.

Leo and I talked a lot about nationalism and place and history. We both love soccer, and we both are World Cup fans who go pretty nuts every four years. But especially after this last World Cup, I’ve begun to have some misgivings about “country” based sporting events. In professional football of the world kind, one great conflict that always comes up is the “club” versus “country” debate. When English players are playing for Premiership teams and training for a major international event, it’s hardly feasible for them to be 100% present for both sets of obligations. (Think of how angry folks in Newcastle are over the injury that an overworked and exhausted Michael Owen sustained last summer while playing for England in Germany.) The traditional wisdom is that athletes should put country over club, national pride over transitory professional obligations. I disagree completely.

I watched the England-Portugal World Cup quarterfinal match last summer in a state of grief and rage. My father, whose family had been rescued from Hitler by English generosity, had died days earlier. And England played a piss-poor match that they deserved to lose. But I, a dual national in SoCal, found myself working myself up into a nationalistic frenzy while watching the game. Under my breath, I said several embarrassing things about the entire Portuguese nation; my rage at a certain Cristian Ronaldo turned quickly into a temporary fury at all things Lusitanian. I calmed down within minutes, but from reading the BBC’s message boards after the game, I know that others were not so restrained. The racist bile that flowed last summer was appalling.

I’ve decided I prefer “club” soccer now. Though I am no fan of Manchester United, I love that Wayne Rooney and his nemesis, Ronaldo, play together. I love seeing a Premiership side take the pitch with eleven players with nearly as many passports. In the mercenary act of playing for pay rather than for national pride, these men do more to advance the cause of peace and understanding than they do when they wear their country’s jerseys on a global stage. Even when nation-based matches are played with mutual respect between the players, the fans themselves are often whipped into emotional frenzies in which ancient bigotries suddenly and shockingly reemerge.

I have my allegiances in sports. I “hate” the Dallas Cowboys. I “hate” Arsenal (of the London clubs, I support Spurs). But those aren’t ethnic hatreds. To put it bluntly, there’s a world of difference between cursing “those f-ing Gunners” after another loss in the North London derby, and cursing “those f-ing wogs” after England loses to a nation whose players (for the most part) have much darker skin than those who wear three Lions on their chests. Club rivalries have notoriously led to violence, but not to wars. In a club rivalry, you shout insults at another fan because of what he wears; in national rivalries, you shout insults because of who he is. There’s no question that the latter is more dangerous. (Now, OKOP don’t shout insults. Our disappointment is subdued, masked, drowned behind thin smiles and private tears. NOKOP rage is public, ours is sublimated.)

(Parenthetical aside: One of the things I love about Los Angeles: we don’t have an NFL team. Here’s an American football fan hoping we never get one! How delicious to live in a city where everyone’s allegiances are elsewhere! I get a smug satisfaction from living in a place that doesn’t need a team to call its own, but can rely on quirky whims to select which club to root for. My youth group kids are holding a Super Bowl party; some will root for the Colts and others for the Bears, but their allegiances are based on uniform colors or affection for a particular player rather than a loyalty to place. I like that.)

But even as I write this this morning, I know better than to claim that I live beyond history. My fascination with “personal growth” and transformation, my longing for new beginnings, my personal narrative of starting over — this is part of my own family’s legacy. What prosperity and success we have had comes from good luck (we got here first and stole more), but also from something that may be coded into our DNA: a longing to go further and further west. Pioneers and survivors are in my blood; I am descended from those who were willing to leave rather than stay. (This brings to mind a snippet from a Caedmon’s Call song: “I come from a long line of leavers.”) I am descended from those whose fascination with the new trumped their loyalty to the old. It would be hubris to suggest that I am the first in a long line to want to start over somewhere new, to liberate myself from old rules and old obligations and old animosities.

Leo and I had a good run that Sunday. And yes, we talked about all of this and more.

Hall and Bales: my two current jock-crushes — UPDATED

Jock-Crush: The response one feels to an athlete of either sex, in any sport, who just makes your heart sing, if only for a moment.

While I follow major sports like soccer and American football, I also have some other particular passions: I love women’s college basketball, and I love distance running. Though my most enduring jock-crush in the former sport is Katie Feenstra, and in the latter, the sublime Scott Jurek, my current heroes are Alison Bales and Ryan Hall.

Ryan just became the first American to break an hour in the half-marathon. Even though the half-marathon is not an Olympic event, it’s one of my favorite distances to race. My best time was 1:30:00 to the second; I had raced to go under ninety minutes and missed my goal by one second. It’s a great distance in which to mix pure speed and endurance.

Alison is the rockin’ tough center of the #1 Duke Blue Devils. 6′7″ of blockin’-out, in the post-bangin’, free-throw nailin’ goodness. She played an awesome game last night in the Devils’ win over Tennessee; ’twas a thing to watch.

If anyone can get me an autographed picture of Ryan or Alison, that would be cool. In my life, I am frequently unimpressed by those who should impress me, and frequently awed by those who do not always attract the attention of the masses. Such is the nature of the jock-crush.

UPDATE: It is not entirely unnoticed by me that I tend to be drawn to female athletes who are unusually tall and strong. (I’m a huge fan of Serena Williams for example, as well as the aforementioned Feenstra and Bales). My male athletic heroes tend to be small and wiry, like Hall and Jurek and your average international class cyclist. Those who wish to psychoanalyze are free to do so. I am quite clear that there is nothing fetishistic about all this, but it is a pattern I recognize.

A note on Beckham and American soccer

One thing I don’t like about teaching in the winter intersession: I am in the classroom so much that I have very little blogging time whilst at school. Fridays, of course, are “errand days”, and today I have all of fifteen minutes in which to blog. This doesn’t lead to very interesting posts!

I am happy with the news that David Beckham is coming to Los Angeles. No, I have never been much of a fan of his. Yes, I do follow English (and Scottish) soccer passionately. I support a variety of British clubs: Newcastle United in the English Premiership, Celtic in the Scottish Premiership, and Exeter City in the conference. I watch the Fox Soccer Channel when I can, and catch my share of tape-delayed European matches. I’m already excited for this year’s “Copa America” tournament, and will of course root for Colombia, my mother-in-law’s native land. But for all that interest in the beautiful game, I have very little interest in the MLS. The last time I went to a professional club soccer match in Los Angeles was a few years ago, when Manchester United played an exhibition against a Mexican side. I don’t even know who the current MLS cup holders are, though I suppose I could google and find out. Watching on television, the quality of the play simply isn’t as strong as what I see from first, or even second-rate European sides.

I am a big fan of college soccer, both men’s and women’s; but that’s almost a completely different game.

But I am eager to see the popularity of soccer in America increase, and eager to see it increase beyond its largely Latino fan base. Obviously, no one man — particularly not a footballer on the downslope of his career — can turn a nation of NASCAR and NFL fans into enthusiastic fans of what the rest of the world calls football. But I’ve long marveled that the millions of kids involved in youth soccer in this country don’t turn into serious fans of the game as adults. If Beckham, who if nothing else remains the master of the set piece, has even half the impact his backers promise he will have, it will be nothing but good.

Will I wear a Galaxy jersey? With the exception of a t-shirt touting the UVA women’s team, I own no kit that identifies me as a fan of American soccer. I have various items associated with English and Colombian (Atletico Nacional) sides, of course. I’m not sure I’ll wear a Beckham Galaxy shirt, but we might finally be motivated to make the short drive over to Carson to watch his new team play.

But it will be years and years before the level of play in the MLS comes even vaguely close to that of the Premiership. Until then, I’ll watch the English squads on cable, rooting for the Magpies with all my heart, and rooting against the satanic trifecta of Man U, Chelsea, and Arsenal.

A radio interview, chin update, and a confession of love for Bobby Knight

Yesterday at lunch time, I trundled over to the KPCC radio studio here on campus to do an interview with NPR.  They’re doing a story on Ratemyprofessors, and they got my name from this InsideHigherEd article.  The piece will eventually air on either Morning Edition or All Things Considered, but probably not for a week or two.  If I get more details on when it’ll be on, I’ll post them.  I really, really like radio.  I make no secret of my own desire to have a part-time gig as a talk-show host.

Our six chinchillas are well and happy.  I’ve opened up a new "Flickr" account, and now must simply edit and upload the many photos we’ve taken of Chihiro, Ninotchka, Gabriella, Joonko, Dudley, and Racheli.   They have captured the hearts of the team of workmen who are redoing our air-conditioning system at home.   Tony, the owner of the company installing the new ducts and compressor/condenser thing, said "I’m amazed that people are willing to spend so much for these little guys."  He’s considering a chinchilla for his kids; we figure that an AC repair guy is the right man to adopt one.  He’ll know how to keep these intensely heat-sensitive animals nice and cool.

And I have an odd confession to make: though it may seem strange for a liberal evangelical metrosexual college gender studies professor to say so, I am now and have been for decades a huge Bobby Knight fan.  The former Indiana and current Texas Tech coach is in the news again; once again, he is accused of "crossing the line" with one of his players.  (He apparently struck the boy gently under the chin to reprimand him.)  For some thirty years, Knight has made himself famous for many things: his remarkable coaching and motivational skills, his famous flashes of anger, his willingness to cross verbal and physical boundaries with his players — boundaries that no other modern coach would dare cross.  He is feared and hated by many, loved by others.  His epic tirades are balanced by a reputation for extraordinary, quiet kindnesses.  Few other figures in sports have had as many passionate admirers and detractors debating his behavior, his meaning, his role, and his legacy for so long.

I can’t say for sure, but I suspect that Knight wouldn’t think much of the likes of me.  Men who teach critical analyses of gender in contemporary American life probably don’t rate high on his scale.  And as someone who is committed to envisioning, embodying, and bringing about a gentler, kinder, more emotionally attuned masculine ideal, I ought to be repulsed by Bobby Knight.  He ought to represent everything I dislike and struggle against.  His overbearing swagger, his overgrown adolescent refusal to play by the rules, his penchant for abusive tirades (and the occasional slap or punch); this man is the very sort of rage-aholic we progressive feminists ought to find repulsive and horrifying.  And yet Knight is one of a handful of coaches whom I, a devoted fan of almost every non-motorized sport, truly admire.  (You haven’t heard of most of the rest of them: Vivian Stringer, Anson Dorrance, Joe Ehrmann, John McDonnell, Sue Enquist.)

What I like about Knight is not his inchoate rage.  What I like about him is something I don’t know that everyone else sees.  When I watch him on the court (and I always try and watch when his teams are playing), I see what I aspire to be: a master teacher.    For me, Knight’s greatness lies in his absolute, unswerving, nearly mad commitment to the personal, intellectual, and physical growth of his student-athletes.  When I watch him coach, I see a man for whom winning isn’t nearly as important as transformation; his great obsession is to be the catalyst for his players to grow.   His famous temper seems primarily directed less towards those who challenge him and more towards those who show some reluctance to grow, change, relentlessly push themselves to become better and better still.

I’m regularly accused on this blog of setting too high a standard, particularly for men.  Whether the issue is pornography, or relationships with younger women, or making and keeping commitments, or accepting responsibility for developing an emotional vocabulary, I push men hard.  I push them harder than I push women not because I think women are weak, but because I am a man who knows first-hand that transformation is possible.  There are plenty of folks out there pushing women to change themselves (not always in healthy ways); there are fewer voices pushing men as hard.  I don’t rage like Knight does, and of course, I would never, ever, ever put anything other than an affectionate hand on a student or youth group kid.   But Coach Knight inspires me more than do any of his peers because I sense in him a kindred spirit; I see in him a man committed to never surrendering to the notion that we cannot become all that our truest selves long to be.

Even now, in the twilight of his career, he is barking and raging against laziness, against incompetence, and above all, against the notion that we cannot radically transform ourselves.  Coach wants to build great teams of unselfish, committed young men.  In a very different and significant way, that’s what I want to do too.

Let’s go Red Raiders; fight on, Texas Tech.

Notes

Monday afternoon notes:

We are having a complete HVAC redo at our townhouse.  We’re getting a newer, larger condenser/compressor whateverthehellyoucallit, getting the vents and coils and wiring redone, the whole works.  It’s gonna take all week, but this way we can guarantee that no matter what the weather, our chinchillas will live in marvelous, reliable, cool comfort.

We did one of my favorite runs yesterday, from Hahamongna Park out to the Switzer camp ground in the Angeles Forest; I broke it off a bit short but it was still a solid 17 miler.  The leaves were glorious. Next to my wife’s voice and a chinchilla’s loving click of pleasure, my favorite sound in the world is the sound of autumn leaves beneath my feet as I race along a single-track trail beneath a canopy of trees.

It was a lousy weekend in sports.  My beloved Golden Bears were, alas, upset by Arizona. My Carmel High Padres lost their annual rivalry game to Pacific Grove — again.   Two local high school rivalries I follow (Pasadena vs. John Muir and Hoover vs. Glendale) were both played, and neither went my way.   Last week’s election wins softened the blow somewhat, but I’m greedy enough to long for undefeated Novembers at both the ballot box and the gridiron.

Let me heartily recommend this post from Stephen Frug: God and the Masculine Pronoun.

Christmas is coming.  I know this because this weekend, I saw the first bleachers for the January 1 Rose Parade erected; this is always the local indicator that the season is at last upon us.  As for so many of us, it is my happiest time of year.

A note on professional boxers and shin splints

Yesterday at the boxing gym, I met this young professional fighter.  Vicente’s a great guy,  and we had a nice chat — and to my considerable pleasure,  I was able to give him some knowledgeable advice about overcoming shin splints.  From the knees up, I have no doubt this fellow could destroy me in any athletic competition he could name.  But for an old man, I have some pretty damn strong lower legs from years of hill running, and I haven’t had shin problems in years and years.  My trainer, Pepe, asked me to give VIcente some tips, and I was immensely flattered by the rapt attention I received from this 2004 Olympian.  (I know, I’m shamelessly name-dropping and bragging.)

Key to overcoming shin splints: hills, hills, hills.  Shins hurt when the calves aren’t as well-developed as they should be.  Just as building strong abs is the best way to deal with lower back pain, building strong calves helps cure shin splints.  And running uphill builds calves like nothing else.

In any event, my boxing training is really coming along.  Only problem: with the new nearly vegan diet, I’m losing muscle as well as fat despite all the protein supplements.  More legumes, more tofu, more push-ups.

Vicente fights next November 10.  I may have to finally start watching boxing.  But what of my pacifism?  Can it coexist with a love of pugilism?