sports culture and double standards
Still thinking about this, sorry.
1. All the chatter about the US "taking revenge" for Bassett is gross and patronizing. It's not outright racist, but there are undertones of it (just like the reaction would have been very different if this had been a men's game, I absolutely guarantee no one would be talking about "taking revenge" for a non-European team).
(That said, the patronizing part I chalk down to the fact that Americans will be Americans.)
2. All the talk about "protecting" the player? Really? How old do you think she is? Twelve? (She's actually older than I thought [I assumed she was a less experienced player], for that matter.)
To give you an idea of JUST HOW GROSS some of it was getting: I was seeing comments about PTSD and suicide watch. Fuck that.
3. Sometimes I question my own humanity/lack of empathy.
In fact, I'm irritated enough by this that I'm half-hoping Japan wins against us on Sunday just to shut everyone up. (It's hard to make villains out of them, but I'm sure people will try anyway.)
Anyway. There are a lot of semi-related things stewing in my mind about this: one is the relative lack of racial diversity in US women's soccer compared to US men's soccer (I can give several likely reasons for this). Another is the status of women's sports in the overall cultural fabric. I don't know if I can really discuss this well (because overall, I'm not a sports fan), but I'm going to try, because I'm REALLY bugged.
(There's been an article summing up a lot of my feelings already too: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11712922/Womens-World-Cup-2015-Our-sympathy-for-Laura-Bassett-is-sexist.html -- the headline is a little misleading and it doesn't cover my feelings entirely, but it's otherwise pretty spot on.)
1. First, on racial diversity in US women's soccer: there are two main factors, I think, and one is cultural and the other is economic.
Culturally, soccer may be popular worldwide, but it is not a "feminine" activity. And this still matters for certain cultures. Frex, for sporty Asian girls, I promise you that the only acceptable sports are tennis(/badminton), volleyball, and golf. Swimming and track & field are probably also fine. But mostly tennis.
(Basketball maybe, but usually this is because if you have the height to be competitive in that sport, it's like "duh go for it.")
Economically -- the US has a pay-to-play model for youth soccer, in contrast to elsewhere, hence the whole suburban "soccer mom" stereotype. There's no money in pro soccer in the US, especially women's pro soccer. No glory either. Outside the US, it's even worse -- a lot of international female players are semi-pro at best and have to work other jobs to make a living.
Growing up, it was a middle-class white girls' sport, and honestly, it probably still is to a certain extent. It is what it is, and doesn't usually bother me as it's something that will take time to change.
But it's something I'm very conscious of whenever people talk about women's soccer. And it's why I cheer for non-European/US women's teams. And why I have never been able to consistently/wholeheartedly support the USWNT (it's totally personal; there is just that emotional barrier there).
2. Women's sports is still seen as "secondary" to men's sports. I think this is unfortunate, but unavoidable -- women's soccer in particular is relatively young. As long as it keeps growing/developing/evolving though, IMO the future is bright.
(There are a lot of assholes who disparage women's soccer for being at a much lower standard than men's soccer [they often trot out the fact that the national women's team regularly loses in practice matches with one of the national youth teams]; there's something to be said about that attitude, but I'm not sure I feel like grappling with it. There are probably smarter discussions on this out there anyway. Mainly what I feel though, again, is that a lot of the quality is down to the fact that it is a young sport [i.e. there hasn't been much genuine competition on an even playing field yet] -- I do agree that women's soccer should be considered as a separate sport simply because of physical differences, but "different" does not have to mean "less quality". I don't like it either though when people use this to make excuses for bad play...)
Also, one of the things people always claim is that US fans support the national women's team more than the men's team (because the women's team is actually an international powerhouse), but actually ever since getting into local soccer, I don't think that's true. I believe there are numbers supporting this, but even friendly men's games get higher attendance rates than competitive pro women's games.
I think what's actually the case is that the USWNT has a lot of fairweather fans -- those who check in every four years to cheer them on for the World Cup.
And you know, I don't think there is anything wrong with that. But I think soccer fundamentally is a grassroots sport; it NEEDS to be supported/developed locally. But that's probably a topic for another day.
3. So some of the arguments I've been seeing trotted out for why public reaction is so different for Bassett and it's totally not sexist gaiz:
- Fans feel less passion for women's soccer/don't have pre-existing preconceptions of women players, whereas male players have baggage from local rivalries/media coverage etc. Fair point, but doesn't account for the blithely condescending tone of a lot of the sympathy.
- Somewhat related to above: male soccer players make so much more money that they're harder to sympathize with, the English women's team were the underdogs and went further than they were expected to and so again, more sympathetic (the implication being that people have much higher expectations of the English men's team, which I think speaks for itself).
- The timing/context of the own goal was particularly cruel. This I can agree with.
- a lot of "missing the point" arguments about how men's sports culture is toxic anyway and we shouldn't be trying to emulate it. (I don't disagree, which is why I was originally touched by the outpouring of support, but. The point is that the double standard EXISTS, and the fact that it exists reflects a lot of things about our society.)
I'm not being even close to comprehensive here, but let me try to lay out my own feelings:
- She's a professional sports player, period. (There'd be maybe some room for legitimate argument if she were from one of the countries where female players can only afford to be "semi-pro" at best, but.) She may not be celebrity status (and honestly I don't think trotting out the "celebrities are fair game" excuse is that great of an argument to begin with), but she's a professional representing her country and this comes with the job: making mistakes and having to live with them. And all athletes make mistakes, even if they may not be quite of this caliber. Like I said, sympathy is definitely due for the context of the mistake -- but she is a professional and ought to be respected as such.
I especially think all the criticism of the camera not giving her any privacy is ridiculous. (It's fair that her teammates tried to shield her, but it's equally fair that the cameras tried to get footage of her reaction, even if I, personally, hate watching that sort of thing.) As if spectators aren't a huge part of sports to begin with? Sports are entertainment and post-game reactions are ABSOLUTELY fair game, and I might even argue they are what make the games in some cases.
(I also find it very hypocritical: it's because the camera showed how absolutely devastated she was that a lot of people are sympathizing for her.)
- Of course I don't think she deserves criticism of the sort a man in her position would get. It was a horrible mistake, it's unfortunate, it's over. But is there really any need to turn her into some sort of martyr either?
- Anyone who claims England "deserved" to have won that game is, I don't know, I don't have anything nice to say about it so I won't. It was a very even game. I'm not denying there was luck involved there (even though I've said I don't think it was purely bad luck, because it was undeniably shoddy defending in the lead-up: the fact that the ball snuck in was definitely luck), but England was in no way "obviously" the superior team. Both teams were playing their hearts out with their own styles, and neither side had quite gained an edge yet imo (although there was a brief period of English dominance in the second half, overall JP was controlling the flow of the game).
- Again, it's disrespectful to overlook the fact that the own goal was the result of good play from Japan. And honestly, all the pity is disrespectful to Bassett herself, who I'm sure has made other contributions this tournament aside from that own goal. (And like I mentioned, that wasn't even the first major mistake she made that game.... not that anyone remembers the first mistake now. -_-)
But do you see anyone, y'know, making an effort to point out/celebrate any good plays she's made except in vague generalities? Nope. Not a single one. (I wouldn't know, because I didn't particularly enjoy England's play in any of their games that I watched and so wasn't paying attention to specific players.)
That's when you really know people are just jumping on the pity bandwagon instead of genuinely appreciating her as a player. And if that's not disgustingly condescending, I don't know what is.......
Also the lack of coverage of the Japanese team is absolutely racist, period. No one's been talking about their team in the English-speaking sphere. It's all been France hype and now pity-party for England. And "US REVENGE". I need to run and get dinner so I'm just going to link this short thread here, which is absolutely spot on.
comments at the original Dreamwidth post
1. All the chatter about the US "taking revenge" for Bassett is gross and patronizing. It's not outright racist, but there are undertones of it (just like the reaction would have been very different if this had been a men's game, I absolutely guarantee no one would be talking about "taking revenge" for a non-European team).
(That said, the patronizing part I chalk down to the fact that Americans will be Americans.)
2. All the talk about "protecting" the player? Really? How old do you think she is? Twelve? (She's actually older than I thought [I assumed she was a less experienced player], for that matter.)
To give you an idea of JUST HOW GROSS some of it was getting: I was seeing comments about PTSD and suicide watch. Fuck that.
3. Sometimes I question my own humanity/lack of empathy.
In fact, I'm irritated enough by this that I'm half-hoping Japan wins against us on Sunday just to shut everyone up. (It's hard to make villains out of them, but I'm sure people will try anyway.)
Anyway. There are a lot of semi-related things stewing in my mind about this: one is the relative lack of racial diversity in US women's soccer compared to US men's soccer (I can give several likely reasons for this). Another is the status of women's sports in the overall cultural fabric. I don't know if I can really discuss this well (because overall, I'm not a sports fan), but I'm going to try, because I'm REALLY bugged.
(There's been an article summing up a lot of my feelings already too: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11712922/Womens-World-Cup-2015-Our-sympathy-for-Laura-Bassett-is-sexist.html -- the headline is a little misleading and it doesn't cover my feelings entirely, but it's otherwise pretty spot on.)
1. First, on racial diversity in US women's soccer: there are two main factors, I think, and one is cultural and the other is economic.
Culturally, soccer may be popular worldwide, but it is not a "feminine" activity. And this still matters for certain cultures. Frex, for sporty Asian girls, I promise you that the only acceptable sports are tennis(/badminton), volleyball, and golf. Swimming and track & field are probably also fine. But mostly tennis.
(Basketball maybe, but usually this is because if you have the height to be competitive in that sport, it's like "duh go for it.")
Economically -- the US has a pay-to-play model for youth soccer, in contrast to elsewhere, hence the whole suburban "soccer mom" stereotype. There's no money in pro soccer in the US, especially women's pro soccer. No glory either. Outside the US, it's even worse -- a lot of international female players are semi-pro at best and have to work other jobs to make a living.
Growing up, it was a middle-class white girls' sport, and honestly, it probably still is to a certain extent. It is what it is, and doesn't usually bother me as it's something that will take time to change.
But it's something I'm very conscious of whenever people talk about women's soccer. And it's why I cheer for non-European/US women's teams. And why I have never been able to consistently/wholeheartedly support the USWNT (it's totally personal; there is just that emotional barrier there).
2. Women's sports is still seen as "secondary" to men's sports. I think this is unfortunate, but unavoidable -- women's soccer in particular is relatively young. As long as it keeps growing/developing/evolving though, IMO the future is bright.
(There are a lot of assholes who disparage women's soccer for being at a much lower standard than men's soccer [they often trot out the fact that the national women's team regularly loses in practice matches with one of the national youth teams]; there's something to be said about that attitude, but I'm not sure I feel like grappling with it. There are probably smarter discussions on this out there anyway. Mainly what I feel though, again, is that a lot of the quality is down to the fact that it is a young sport [i.e. there hasn't been much genuine competition on an even playing field yet] -- I do agree that women's soccer should be considered as a separate sport simply because of physical differences, but "different" does not have to mean "less quality". I don't like it either though when people use this to make excuses for bad play...)
Also, one of the things people always claim is that US fans support the national women's team more than the men's team (because the women's team is actually an international powerhouse), but actually ever since getting into local soccer, I don't think that's true. I believe there are numbers supporting this, but even friendly men's games get higher attendance rates than competitive pro women's games.
I think what's actually the case is that the USWNT has a lot of fairweather fans -- those who check in every four years to cheer them on for the World Cup.
And you know, I don't think there is anything wrong with that. But I think soccer fundamentally is a grassroots sport; it NEEDS to be supported/developed locally. But that's probably a topic for another day.
3. So some of the arguments I've been seeing trotted out for why public reaction is so different for Bassett and it's totally not sexist gaiz:
- Fans feel less passion for women's soccer/don't have pre-existing preconceptions of women players, whereas male players have baggage from local rivalries/media coverage etc. Fair point, but doesn't account for the blithely condescending tone of a lot of the sympathy.
- Somewhat related to above: male soccer players make so much more money that they're harder to sympathize with, the English women's team were the underdogs and went further than they were expected to and so again, more sympathetic (the implication being that people have much higher expectations of the English men's team, which I think speaks for itself).
- The timing/context of the own goal was particularly cruel. This I can agree with.
- a lot of "missing the point" arguments about how men's sports culture is toxic anyway and we shouldn't be trying to emulate it. (I don't disagree, which is why I was originally touched by the outpouring of support, but. The point is that the double standard EXISTS, and the fact that it exists reflects a lot of things about our society.)
I'm not being even close to comprehensive here, but let me try to lay out my own feelings:
- She's a professional sports player, period. (There'd be maybe some room for legitimate argument if she were from one of the countries where female players can only afford to be "semi-pro" at best, but.) She may not be celebrity status (and honestly I don't think trotting out the "celebrities are fair game" excuse is that great of an argument to begin with), but she's a professional representing her country and this comes with the job: making mistakes and having to live with them. And all athletes make mistakes, even if they may not be quite of this caliber. Like I said, sympathy is definitely due for the context of the mistake -- but she is a professional and ought to be respected as such.
I especially think all the criticism of the camera not giving her any privacy is ridiculous. (It's fair that her teammates tried to shield her, but it's equally fair that the cameras tried to get footage of her reaction, even if I, personally, hate watching that sort of thing.) As if spectators aren't a huge part of sports to begin with? Sports are entertainment and post-game reactions are ABSOLUTELY fair game, and I might even argue they are what make the games in some cases.
(I also find it very hypocritical: it's because the camera showed how absolutely devastated she was that a lot of people are sympathizing for her.)
- Of course I don't think she deserves criticism of the sort a man in her position would get. It was a horrible mistake, it's unfortunate, it's over. But is there really any need to turn her into some sort of martyr either?
- Anyone who claims England "deserved" to have won that game is, I don't know, I don't have anything nice to say about it so I won't. It was a very even game. I'm not denying there was luck involved there (even though I've said I don't think it was purely bad luck, because it was undeniably shoddy defending in the lead-up: the fact that the ball snuck in was definitely luck), but England was in no way "obviously" the superior team. Both teams were playing their hearts out with their own styles, and neither side had quite gained an edge yet imo (although there was a brief period of English dominance in the second half, overall JP was controlling the flow of the game).
- Again, it's disrespectful to overlook the fact that the own goal was the result of good play from Japan. And honestly, all the pity is disrespectful to Bassett herself, who I'm sure has made other contributions this tournament aside from that own goal. (And like I mentioned, that wasn't even the first major mistake she made that game.... not that anyone remembers the first mistake now. -_-)
But do you see anyone, y'know, making an effort to point out/celebrate any good plays she's made except in vague generalities? Nope. Not a single one. (I wouldn't know, because I didn't particularly enjoy England's play in any of their games that I watched and so wasn't paying attention to specific players.)
That's when you really know people are just jumping on the pity bandwagon instead of genuinely appreciating her as a player. And if that's not disgustingly condescending, I don't know what is.......
Also the lack of coverage of the Japanese team is absolutely racist, period. No one's been talking about their team in the English-speaking sphere. It's all been France hype and now pity-party for England. And "US REVENGE". I need to run and get dinner so I'm just going to link this short thread here, which is absolutely spot on.
comments at the original Dreamwidth post