Sexuality, Gender and Race in American Football

     The origins of American football have helped shape the face of the sport and its role in our culture today. In its early stages, football was a white male-dominated sport. Reforms to college and professional leagues over the years have extended to include both women and minorities, specifically African Americans. However, despite these changes there continues to be a hegemonic notion of white masculinity connected to the sport. The history of football and its progression over the years can be viewed as the source of the continuing issues of gender, sexuality, and race in the sport even today.

     In looking at the implications of football on our society, it is important to also observe the sport’s origins. Because of Princeton’s involvement in the earliest form of American football, Mark Bernstein’s Princeton Football provided an excellent account of the sport’s early culture. The first intercollegiate football game was played between Rutgers University and Princeton University in 1869, and since then Princeton played an important role in the progression of football (Bernstein, 9). Bernstein describes how shockingly violent early football was, citing former player Luther Price who called it “near butchery”. This lead to Theodore Roosevelt’s eventual call to reform the game and make it less violent (34). Bernstein’s work highlights the stories of Princeton’s most prolific and iconic players, framing them as heroes. Rather than delving into issues of sexuality or race in the realm of the sport, Bernstein instead focuses on the athletic heroes which helped establish college football as we know it today. The way that the history of football is often framed reflects the hegemonic views surrounding football in our culture.

     The expectation of masculinity in football likely stems from early customs found in Rugby, football’s ancestral form. In Rugby, the teams used to consist of married men playing against bachelors and the distinction between the married and the unmarried pointed to a ritual test of masculinity (Dundes, 76). According to Dundes’ piece, the reason that college football is so popular in America has to do with its ties to masculinity. He states that “it is almost as though the masculinity of male alumni is at stake in a given game, especially when a hated rival school is the opponent” (75). Ideas of masculinity have very much been tied to the sport, so the association between manliness and football continues. The actual sport of football also holds certain practices that reinforce this idea of masculinity. In order to play the game, one must manifest physical and cultural values of masculinity (77). Dundes also comments on how the uniforms present a bulk-shouldered, exaggerated visual of man who, while dressed in this manner, can “engage in activities such as hand holding, hugging, and bottom patting, that would be disapproved of in any other context” (76). This relates to the ideas of sexuality in football because while the realm of the sport stereotypically excludes homosexuals, the strictly heterosexual players themselves engage in many homoerotic activities.

     There are many stereotypes surrounding gender and sexuality in football. Football remains an unquestioned male domain in the eyes of popular media. There is a widely-held notion that there is only room for heterosexual, “masculine” men within the realm of football. In fact, many football players are portrayed in popular media as bullies to anyone they deem effeminate. Ironically, many of the practices commonly found in football are highly homoerotic. During the draft, men carefully observe the bodies of other men and describe those characteristics which they value and appreciate the most. By placing the draftees under the male gaze, they are placing them in a position normally occupied by women (Oates, 75). Teammates also often touch one another’s bodies in a way that, off the field, would be deemed nothing but homosexual (Oates, 81). Although the stereotypical representation of football players is tied to an image of masculinity, there is a homoerotic undertone to the sport. Nevertheless, the hegemonic idea of heterosexual masculinity in football leaves little room for homosexual or female entities to enter the scene. One of the few inclusions of females in football presents them as hyper-sexualized objects of the male gaze (Bruce, 133).

     This hegemonic idea of women in sports is evidenced by the portrayal of females in football ads. According to Toni Bruce’s article, mediasport is “an overwhelmingly male and hegemonically masculine domain that produces coverage by men, for men and about men”. Marissa Miller, Sports Illustrated and Victoria’s Secret supermodel, became a spokesperson for the 49ers for the 2010-2011 season because the NFL wanted to involve women in marketing and “recognize the female football fan”. The images from the campaign reflect the stereotype of the sexualized female football fan. The NFL’s selection of Marissa Miller as the face of the female football fan-base presupposes that this is what the female fan actually looks like. As I analyzed the ad campaign, I noticed how primped and posed the model had been for the shoot. She did not resemble the average American female fan who often dons the team’s jersey and cheers them on with her male counterparts. The use of models in football ads mainly reaches out to the male viewers. Sexualization in media “represents sportswomen within discourses of idealized sexual attractiveness” (Bruce, 129). Although the NFL claimed to make strides to include their female fans, their ad campaigns continued to target the heterosexual male viewers. Dundes argues that American football is seen as a male activity that defines and affirms masculinity. Women are left, or rather permitted, to be spectators and cheerleaders, but never participants (Dundes, 87). Due to the sport’s origins as a white male-dominated practice, its current dynamic continues to marginalize women and minorities.

     The NFL Draft is a prime example of how white male dominance is reinforced in football. For one, the practice of selecting players is dehumanizing, one NFL general manager going as far as to say “If we’re going to buy ’em, we ought to see what we’re buying” (Oates, 77). In recent history there has been a shift in the league from dominantly white to roughly two-thirds of NFL players now being African American. Some have termed this the “disappearance” of white athletes in football (78). Oates observes that at this moment where race relations are changing within the NFL is precisely when the draft has become a more popular event than ever. Black athletic dominance is seen as a threat to white masculinity, so the draft commodifies black bodies and places them under the control of white men (79). This structure of white dominance is rooted in social practices from our history. It would be unfair to assume that every general manager within the NFL views the draft as an opportunity to assert his dominance over these black athletic bodies. Instead I argue that the practice in itself is tied to social ideas of race that still existed in the developmental time period of American football. The issue of race and equal opportunity has also been prevalent in the coaching world of the NFL.

     Although African American players were given more opportunities once the NFL was desegregated in the mid 1940s, coaching positions were still a white-dominated business for a large part of NFL history. Advancing the Ball explores the movement towards equal coaching opportunities in the NFL. The league made it virtually impossible for African Americans to simply attain a head coaching position (Duru, 8). In fact, the first African American head coach of the modern NFL did not take over until 1989. Duru likens the fight for equal opportunity in coaching to an untold civil rights story of its own (7). Former Cleveland Browns player John Wooten lead the initiative toward equality in head coach hiring. This eventually lead to the passage of the “Rooney Rule” which states that every team must interview at least one minority applicant for head coach (70). Again, the fight for equality in racial representation in the NFL, long after its official desegregation, lies in the sport’s roots. Throughout the course of history, white males have exerted their power over racial minorities. This show of dominance has been embedded in the traditions and sports that are fundamental to our nation’s identity. Thus racial inequities have conceivably carried on into the modern world of those sports.

     This theme of white male dominance in football continues to marginalize females, homosexuals, and racial minorities alike. According to Messner, sports media all across the board constructs “hegemonic masculinity in relation to femininities but also in relation to marginalized or subordinated masculinities” (Messner, 117). This means that stereotypical masculinity is constructed by drawing the contrast not only to women but even the “less manly” men. As Dundes argued, masculinity is reaffirmed by the male ritual of football. The conception of gender, sexuality, and race in football today is a product of the hegemonic ideas of masculinity surrounding the sports world. The male gaze is pertinent to the marginalization of the “others”. As Oates described, the male gaze in the draft disempowers the mostly African American draftees to a role normally held by women. These three different sectors of society are subject to many of the same inequalities in the realm of football.

     The time period in which American football began to emerge contributed to its makings. Many of the rules and customs transferred over from the days of Rugby. These included ideas of hypermasculinity. Paired with the discrimination of homosexuals and African Americans that was conventional at the turn of the century, the groundwork of football left little room for anyone but white males to thrive. My position as a female in the sports world allows me to experience and understand the ongoing struggle of gender equality in football as well. I feel that the sexualization of females in the media disempowers women and discourages us from taking part in sports in the same way that our male counterparts do. Though our society has progressed since the foundational times of football, many of these ideologies are still woven into the practices of the sport even today. The fight for equality in gender, sexuality, and race will continue as long as these hegemonic values are still in practice.

Sources:

Bernstein, Mark F. Princeton Football. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Pub., 2009. Print.
http://lrho.alexanderstreet.com/View/73856584

Bruce, Toni. “Reflections on Communication and Sport: On Women and Femininities” Communication and Sport 1:1/2 (2012) 125-137.

Dundes, Alan. “Into the Endzone for a Touchdown: A Psychoanalytic Consideration of American Football.” Western Folklore 37.2 (1978): 75-88. JSTOR. Web. 2 Mar. 2014.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1499315?ref=search-gateway:f1709338d6ec0c56965b0d5326213ad7

Duru, N. Jeremi. Advancing the Ball: Race, Reformation, and the Quest for Equal Coaching Opportunity in the NFL. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.
http://www.ucsd.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=618598&echo=1&extsrc=shib-tid&patrontype=MEMBER@ucsd.edu;MEMBER@ucsd.edu

Messner, Michael. “Reflections on Communication and Spot: On Men and Masculinities” Communication and Sport 1:1/2 (2012) 113-124.

Oates, Thomas P. “The Erotic Gaze in the NFL Draft.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 4.1 (2007): 74-90. Print.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14791420601138351#.UyTlfl7HJK4-NFL Draft

Queer Men of Color: A Sin of the NFL

Issues about homophobia and racial representation in the National Football League are derived from male domination that structures the institution to distribute power through a culture of heterosexual dominance and white supremacy; just a scratch on the surface of the problems within the institution of football. However, a more problematic concern is that the overly represented and normalized structure of heterosexual dominance and white supremacy are interpreted as disconnected forms of oppressive power; a notion that  symbolizes  “American” sentiments about identity. Roy Simmons was the second of only three Professional Football players ever to publicly address his homosexuality. In addition to that, he is the only African American player to come out.  In his autobiographical narrative, Out of Bounds, he highlights his life of lies in the NFL as a closeted gay African American male and the feelings of exclusion that  impacted his professional and personal lives. Esera Tuaolo was the third NFL player to address his homosexuality, and the second to publish an autobiographical narrative titled Alone in the Trenches: My Life as a Gay Man in the NFL, which describes his experience as a Filipino gay man in diaspora, specifically as a professional football athlete. Each of these players waited until after retiring to publicly state their news. Although many scholars claim that the struggle for homosexuals to be openly gay are lessening, I will deviate from this claim to specifically illustrate that nationally accepted versions of white heterosexuality are carried into the NFL through heteropatriarchal dominance, white heteronormative sports coverage, and white masculinity, causing  physical and institutional removal from acceptance. The institution of football represents issues that form the homosexual struggle in the NFL: sex inequality, which alludes to heterosexuality in the form of patriarchal dominance, and an inter-male dominance hierarchy through measurements of racialized masculinity. However, most critical race theory in sports does not address Blackness and Queerness as intersecting, nor does it trace the trajectories of non-black queer people of color. In order to critique the structure of professional football, I consider intersectional approaches of race, sexuality, and gender to consider the political and cultural implications of racialized and sexualized minorities within white heteronormative structures.

Heterosexual misogynistic dominance is normalized in football through controlling and supervising male-and-female sexual relations. Simmons, while discussing his opinion that the locker room is the collective space in which heterosexual sex frequently dominates the conversation, shares that his teammates would create “contest[s] to see who could fuck the most women in a week–you know: male ego bullshit” (118).  By creating such competitions that are evaluated by the number of sexual encounters with women, heterosexuality is therefore celebrated  and rewarded when practiced excessively. In her article, Nightmares of the Heteronormative, Ferguson discusses how non-normative sexualities are created through “regulating sexual expression through heteropatriarchal intimate relations….such confirmation is crucial to the integrity of …allocation of rights and privileges” (421). In this quote, she critiques how constant regulation of male to female sex creates homosexual relations as a non-normative sexuality. Also, this quote illustrates that constant regulations of heterosexual intimacy normalize the meaning of homosexuality as unspoken and taboo.  Furthermore, she indicates that the power of these heteronormative applications are crucial in understanding how privilege and belonging are directly related to heterosexuality. Simmons explains how heterosexuality is seen as a privilege for professional football players:

In the NFL, you could be a wife beater, you can do drugs, get piss-ass drunk and wreck your car… No matter what sin you committed, the team would accept you…If anything the team would hold you in higher esteem! A man who played professional football could get away with pretty much anything, but never- under any circumstances whatsoever- could you announce that you were gay. That was the unpardonable sin. (Simmons 126)

The simple fact that amongst the team members, one could get away with domestic violence and illegal drug activity–and be praised for it– demonstrates how heterosexual players are praised for misbehaving; while homosexuality itself serves  as justification for punishment. The hierarchy of heterosexual privilege is extended  into the structure of football as Anderson states that any variance to heterosexuality is subversive and therefore likely to less opportunity for promotion (68). Although there is no promotion beyond the NFL level, the significance of Anderson’s argument is that it demonstrates that  homosexual players are  automatically perceived as less valuable compared to their heterosexual counterparts. Finally, the limits of homosexuality within the structure of football are crafted through an assumption of heterosexuality and racial stratification within a hierarchy of whiteness.

Representations of NFL players reflect white heteronormativity through the reproduction of images that display sexual and racial difference as disposable to public interests. Kimberly Crenshaw notes in her article Mapping the Margins, “Race, gender, and other identity categories are most often treated as intrinsically negative frameworks in which social power works to exclude  or marginalize those who are different” (493). Within this quote, those who are different are those who do not embody whiteness.  The complexity of understanding both race and sexuality in relation to lived experience  serves as helpful information in understanding how far queer people of color are placed underneath straight white players.  As she explains in her article The Whiteness of Sport Media/Scholarship,  Mary McDonald writes that Black masculinity has “repeatedly construct[ed] Black male athletes as inherently physically oriented and with binary visions of ‘good Black’ and ‘bad Black'” (155) . The dichotomy between ‘good and bad’ represents the placement within measurements of whiteness that Black football players can fit into. This binary reproduces “good” and “bad” physical capabilities of Black bodies, while simultaneously ignoring  larger systemic disadvantages that affect people of color on a large scale.  In addition to his Black identity, it also seen how his sexual identity works to suppress true self-expression. We can take an experiment conducted by Jennifer Knight and Traci Giuliano from Southwest University on the “image problem,” which showed that athletes described as clearly heterosexual were perceived more favorably than athletes whose sexual orientation was ambiguous. Most importantly, the test concluded that male athletes “who transgress their ‘heterosexual assumption'” are affected more harshly than women, deeming that gay males who are “inconsistent” with the idealized male image are extremely feminine (Knight 280). Since male athletes are represented to embody heterosexuality in their public image, Simmons encounters a formidable path as his queer identity and Black skin place him farther away from ideal whiteness. Popularly circulated images of football players are constructed to be viewed as strictly white and heterosexual, and as these representations are extensively portrayed through popular media outlets,  leaving little to no representation of queer brown men. Therefore, queer players of color must commit to a privileged racialized and gendered performance of whiteness in order to be read as legitimate in within the dominant white male gaze.

In her discussion on whiteness as racialized privilege, Cheryl Harris addresses how racial stereotypes about African Americans in popular culture “helped the masses of America create a positive and superior sense of identity”  for white Americans (173). By identifying the Black body as subordinate to white bodies, blackness as an identity is disposable while whiteness is glorified. Thus, the racialized stereotypes in the above quote, paired with the “heterosexual assumption” of athletes,  demonstrate how  perceptions of non-white gay athletes are grouped underneath whiteness; as abject/ others.  Simmons adds to this discussion by explaining the overwhelming pressure that accompanies great publicity and the need to conform to dominant representations of  the white heterosexual, “I am no longer allow to do certain things  I may have liked to do. Suddenly I can’t just  act the same way I used to. From out of nowhere you’ve got all these people relying on you, and theres no room for error” (Simmons 124). From the quotation,  public representation caused Simmons to constantly have to hide his sexual identity and police his Black masculinity, due to misleading and limiting representations of gay athletes and Black athletes. To contribute, Tuaolo has immense fears of excelling in his football career because it would result in an abundance of publicity since he does not reflect white heterosexuality. He explains after he would make a successful play on the field his anxiety would heighten, “hours later, in the middle of the night, I’d wake up sweating… Maybe someone who knows [that I’m gay] saw that…Maybe they’ll call the coach, or the owner, or the papers. Sometimes I’d spend hours laying awake, praying for the anxiety attack to end” (Tuaolo 147). The fear that Tuaolo experienced was that his image of homosexuality would prevail in the sports coverage, which is derived from his abjection from the glorified white masculinity.  Due to life under the microscope of the public eye, Simmons and Tuaolo must combat individual stereotypes of gay men and non-white men in order to genuflect to the expectations of his audience’s gaze.  This demonstrates the idea that heterosexual and racial performance are constantly being scrutinized, on and off the field as a way of maintaining white heteronormativity.

In addition to heterosexual and white dominance in football, there is a deeper inter-male competition that occurs due to the patrolling of one another’s masculine performance in order to identify femininity as a direct opposition to masculinity. The need for professional football players to patrol each other’s masculinity is how they replicates the scale of hegemonic masculinity. The term hegemonic masculinity can be understood as “the most dominant form of masculinity (white, middle-class, heterosexual) in a given historical period, [and] is defined in relation to femininity and subordinated masculinities” (Dworkin 49). Immersed in the cultural dynamics of football is the concentration of hegemonic masculinity, as expectations and ideals of masculinities are informed and practiced.  The use of “fag” as a slur among football players is one method of patrolling masculinity; by reducing the masculinity of another player, a football player could validate his social status by reassuring his own masculinity.  Relating back to Crenshaw, she explains how  categorization of identities  “vulgar constructionism thus distorts the possibilities of meaningful identity politics by conflating separate but closely linked powers.”  In this quote, vulgar constructionism distorts meaningful identity politics because of the immense power of categorizing sexual identity, and the limits to which categorizations manifest into social meaning. The word; “fag” plays a very critical role in the applications of gender performance, as it exemplifies how the pressures of gender performance are extended through language and communication. As C.J. Pascoe describes it, the “fag discourse” represents the use of the word fag in social interaction as a way to police one another’s actions within and beyond the boundaries of masculinity, thus categorizing homosexual and feminine categories in male bodies. Pascoe argues that the policed boundaries of masculinity constructs a gendered sense of homophobia towards male homosexuals, which represents how “fag” is powerful in creating exclusion of gay identities in football. Michael Messner explains that the performance of masculinity is a task for homosexual athletes that occurs with “the development of a positional identity that clarifies the boundaries between the self and the other….in which [gay players] struggled to construct masculine positional identities” (100). Here, Messner explains how words that police masculinity directly contribute to how football players define themselves in relation to one another. Tuaolo confirms this notion as he remembers old lessons of masculinity from his football coaches, “Since you were little boys you’ve been told, ‘hey, don’t be a little faggot'” (330). This form of insult is initiated to teach boys that their masculinity is a necessity for the athleticism of a professional football player.  It is the use of this word that perpetuates the notion that masculine men naturally dominate football. Tuaolo writes about how shocked he was when he got to the professional level from hearing the word fag in the locker room, mostly from coaches, “They called each other ‘fags,’ ‘fucking queers,’ fudgepackers'” (Tuaolo 94). Although the word fag is taught to a little kid as a relation to the inferiority of  homosexuality and femininity, the NFL culture demanded of Simmons  and Tuaolo a greater internalized feeling of homophobia  because of the intensified boundaries of masculinity.  Since categorizing fags defines self in relation to the other, heterosexual men collectively engage in what Messner described as “cultural values and behaviors ….which are culturally valued aspects of masculinity” (99). Messner claims that through these culturally valued aspects of masculinity, men create status differences among other men in order to legitimize their masculine practices and behaviors. Moreover, since masculinity is culturally valued, players who reinforce and police masculinity create bonds through the internalization of their own masculinity as dominant over femininity. This represents a method of how gender performance is geared to oppress the male homosexual, as reference to “fags” is a way of checking the performance of masculinity, a trait that is directly linked with heterosexuality.

By looking through the lens of Roy Simmons  and Esera Tuaolo’s experience as gay African American, and Filipino men, respectively, we can identify the structures that silence the racialized homosexual struggle. The institution of football directly incorporates hegemonic American ways of addressing identity difference.  These epitomized ideas of white heteronormativity and masculinity are external forces that shape the way a male football player should be on and off the playing field. This paints a larger picture, as it exemplifies how offensive stereotypes and exclusion of “the other” are reinforced through a societal discourse. The exclusion of homosexual identities within football causes their struggle to be invisible in a way that promotes the normalization of heterosexual politics, so much that the homosexual identity then becomes hyper-visible in that same framework. By introducing intersectionality of race, sexuality, and gender, I bring spotlight to the microscopic community of homosexual football players of color in the large culture of professional American football to demonstrate the formation of an underrepresented individual in a war against sexual discrimination and racial oppression. The significance of this battle is that homosexual men of color in the NFL  not only battle against the constructed ideas of whiteness, masculinity and heterosexuality, but that they are fighting against a hierarchical privilege that seems to prevail throughout the idealized “American” identity. This heteropatriarchal privilege has been constructed and perpetuated to form an enclosed circle, that from within is exclusive to any diversion from “normal” criteria. Moreover, the concept of normality allocates privilege to those individuals who embody this normality.  As white,  masculine, and heterosexual privilege is idealized and practiced in the institutional aspects of football, homosexual players of color are then oppressed. Then, we can understand how the lives of underrepresented minorities are shaped based on the hegemonic discourse that in many ways perpetuates norms, and cultural and social traditions of heteropatriarchal whiteness.

Works Cited

Anderson, Eric. In The Game: Gay Athletes and the Cult of Masculinity. Albany: State University of New York Press. 2005. Print.

Crenshaw, Kimberle. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review , Vol. 43, No. 6 (Jul., 1991), pp. 1 241-1299. Print.

Dworkin, Shari Lee, and Faye Linda Wachs. “The Morality/Manhood Paradox: Masculinity, Sport, and the Media. Masculinities, Gender Relations, and Sport. Vol 13. Thousand Oaks: Sage Productions, Inc. 2000. Print.

Ferguson, Roderick. “The Nightmares of the Heteronormative.” Cultural Values 4.4 (2000): 419-444. Print.

Harris, Cheryl. “Whiteness as Property.” Harvard Law Review , Vol. 106, No. 8 (Jun., 1993), pp. 1707-1791. Print.

Knight, Jennifer L., and Traci A. Guiliano. “Blood, Sweat, and Jeers: The Impact of the Media’s Heterosexist Portrayals on Perceptions of Male and Female Athletes. Journal of Sport and Behavior.” Journal of Sport Behavior 26.3 (2003): 272-284. Print.

McDonald, Mary G. “The Whiteness of Sport Media/ Scholarship.” Examining Identity in Sports Media. Ed. Hundley, Heather and Andrew C. Billings. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. 2010. 153-169. Print.

Messner, Michael A., and Donald F. Sabo, eds. Sport, Men, and the Gender Order: Critical Feminist Perspectives. 1990. Print.

Pascoe, C.J. 2005. “‘Dude, You’re a Fag’: Adolescent Masculinity and the Fag Discourse.” Sexualities 8:329-46. Print.

Simmons, Roy, and Damon DiMarco. Out of Bounds: Coming Out of Sexual Abuse, Addiction, and My Life of Lies in the NFL Closet. New York: Da Capo Press. 2006. Print.

Tuaolo, Esera, and John Rosengren. Alone in the Trenches: My Life as a Gay Man in the NFL. Naperville: Source Books, Inc. 2006. Print.

What Would You Rather Be Hit With?

This project has allowed me to look at Softball, a sport I’ve been playing nearly my entire life from a new perspective. People always assume that I play Baseball, or that Softball and Baseball are the same thing, they aren’t! Whenever people made comments like this it would bother me but I never truly understood where the confusion came from. Through this project, I have learned how the history of the sport along with the development of technology has contributed to the ideologies of masculinity and how equipment within the sport is a site of gender division and therefore a site where the gender binary is reinstalled in society.

The origins of Softball contribute significantly to the connotation of male superiority in sport. Softball was created in order to prevent women from participating in Baseball. By creating Softball, segregation between the sexes was allowed and encouraged. Before Softball was created in the 1890s women were discouraged from participating in Baseball because it was considered “too violent” or “too strenuous” (Ring 379). As a result of women continuing to fight to be included in the sport, Softball was created. The creation of Softball would prevent female participation in Baseball by giving them a more ladylike and safe alternative. Despite the similarities between the sport Baseball is still considered the superior, especially in terms of revenue generation (Ring 375). After Title IX was passed in 1972, the previous claims about female inability to participate in sports has been discounted due to extensive female participation in several high contact sports. In fact, on the cover of the Little League Softball rulebook there is a picture of a close play at third base with the runner sliding with no protection for her legs (Ring 385). Featuring such a highly aggressive play on the cover of the rulebook demonstrates that women are just as capable of participating in athletics as men are.

In terms of technology, the face mask on a batting helmet was made a required piece of equipment in every level up to college in 2006. I am extremely familiar with this rule as I was on my 12U All-Star Team when all of our helmets were taken to install face masks on them. As a 12 year old I was more upset about having metal bars blocking my vision then concerned about the safety hazard of having my face exposed while hitting. I continue to wear a face mask to this day, although it is not required, to protect my face both while hitting and while base running. In baseball on the other hand, a face mask is not required in and level of play. In fact, the batting helmet in higher levels becomes smaller and smaller. MLB players wear a batting helmet that has very little padding between the plastic and the players head and only has one ear flap, to cover the ear facing the pitcher. Bruce Kidd in his article “Sports and Masculinity” explains that men are able to become more “masculine” through participation and conformity to the norms of their sports however women don’t have the same opportunity (Kidd). Therefore, due to the long trend of MLB players wearing minimal protective gear, as players continue to wear similar helmets they project their masculinity or “machoness”. Women do not have the same opportunities, in fact they are subject to a catch 22 in which by not wearing a face mask they project masculinity and their sexuality can be brought into question, however if they do wear face masks they are seen as weak. Therefore equipment used in Softball to this day continues to illuminate the ideology that women need to be protected and that sports are “too violent” or dangerous for women however men are able to deal with the danger of the sport. 

Throughout the course of this project, the Media Analysis blog sparked my interest in this particular topic, equipment and masculinity. The advertisement for the National Pro Fastpitch exemplifies the connection between safety and masculinity. The ad features a play on words juxtaposing the term safe at a base and safety indicating that the NPF plays so “hard” or “tough” that their safety is at risk, and is therefore worth watching. In this ad there is a softball player, who seems to be diving into a base and a glove containing the ball which looks to be in a motion of a tag. Also contained within the image is a helmet which looks to be flying in the air most likely as a result of the tag. The vulnerability of the woman diving in her lack of safety equipment protecting her face alludes to the theme that toughness and masculinity are intertwined. In Leslie Heywood’s article “Producing Girls” the difference between “can do” and “at risk” girls is discussed in a way that helps to explain the connection between toughness and masculinity. Can Do girls are women who are adapting, flexible, and active in the sports world. At risk girls on the other hand are those not involved in athletics (Heywood 104). According to the article “Producing Girls” at risk girls are named as such due to their vulnerability to drugs, alcohol, and other things that hinder success by abstaining from athletic participation. Can Do and At Risk girls are ironic in that the so called “at risk girls” are at risk by not participating in athletics, however the women participating in athletics are actually at risk for injury. This change in ideologies from the 1890s when Baseball was considered to dangerous for women to play, to 2007 when the article was written, encouraging women to participate in sport in order to avoid being at risk is extremely important. The ideologies of the Can Do and At Risk girls are not hegemonies however, these ideas about women being at risk by not participating in sport are definitely more prevalent than they were in the 1890s, however they are still a minority to the ideologies of masculinity and patriarchy. I believe that while the ideologies of Can Do and At Risk girls have good intentions of encouraging women to become involved in sports and not succumb to dominant ideologies of masculinity, ignore the risk of injury.  The woman pictured in this image according to Heywood’s article is a Can Do girl, due to her involvement in sports however, she is literally at risk. Her helmet has been hit off her head exposing her to possible injury. The advertisement, in an attempt to project masculinity through toughness has demonstrated that can do girls are actually at risk, in terms of their safety. In terms of the equipment being used, the helmet the Softball player is using does not appear to have a face mask on it. This being said, the lack of a face mask on her helmet contributes to her ability to be portrayed as a tough and legitimate athlete. If her helmet had a face mask it would be subject to the ideology created by society that she is just a Softball player and that therefore the NPF is not worth supporting because it is a bunch of women using equipment that prevents them from injury. Although equipment that prevents injury seems logical, according to the hegemony of the ties between masculinity and toughness, the face mask on a batting helmet prevents Softballs ability to be a “valid” or masculine sport.

As I discussed earlier, it always has bothered me that people confuse Baseball and Softball, despite similar framework, they are very different sports. I think the video above does a good job of explaining the important differences between the sport. In addition, contrary to Softball just being an “easier” form of Baseball for women, this video demonstrates that Softball is in fact just as, if not more difficult than Baseball. Most Softball players at elite levels throw between 60 and 70 miles per hour. The MLB on the other hand has pitchers throwing over 90 miles per hour every pitch. At first glance the answer seems obvious, trying to hit a ball traveling 90 miles per hour versus 70 is absolutely more difficult. The FSN Sport Science video however shows through the experiment they conduct that a Softball pitch delivers more force than that of a Baseball pitch. The Baseball pitcher threw several pitches and the machine was able to calculate a numerical amount of force; when Jennie Finch threw her first pitch, she broke the machine. Although my argument is not what sport is better or which is more difficult, this video is significant in that it validates Softball as a legitimate sport and not just a second best to Baseball. In relation to equipment, a softball is considered an easier object to use, the piece of equipment is gendered because it is called soft and is so much larger than a baseball. These connotations of a softball lead to the false ideology the Softball is an easier and safer form of Baseball for women.

The experiment conducted in this video on a much larger scale demonstrates how prominent social constructions are in our society. A social construction is an idea or thought that is created an normalized by use in society. The ideology that Baseball is more masculine or tough than Softball has been constructed through society throughout history. The claims that Softball is more feminine and therefore safer for women to play are socially constructed and not based on scientific fact. The experiment explains that a Baseball pitch delivers less force than that of a Softball, therefore, Softball is not and should not be considered less of a sport than Baseball.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130821&content_id=57865854&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

I have included a picture of a former teammate who was hit in the face by a pitch two years ago. Following that incident she installed a face mask on her helmet. I have also included a link to a MLB News Story which has a video of a MLB player getting hit in the face by a pitch. Both Baseball and Softball players are susceptible to severe face injuries. Just because Softball is an exclusively female sport does not mean that the injuries or danger is any less severe. The face mask that is mandatory in all levels of Softball with the exception of college is to prevent injury to the athlete. In my opinion the face mask should be worn by both Baseball and Softball players as both sports are dangerous and it is a good preventative measure to take in preventing face injuries. I believe that because the face mask is only mandatory in Softball it creates and furthers the connotation that Softball is a “girly” sport and that the women playing have to be protected from the dangers of athletics. If my former teammate had been wearing a face mask on her helmet, the ball wouldn’t have caused a minor bone fracture in her cheek bone. Similarly, if the MLB player had been wearing a face mask, it could have prevented the severe injuries he suffered to his face. Unfortunately for both the Baseball players who are susceptible to head injuries, and for women who are subjected to ideologies of male superiority, a man wearing a face mask on his helmet is unheard of.

Through the research I have done on this project I have found that socially constructed ideologies are ever present in our society and culture. The most hegemonic of socially constructed terms or ideologies is that of the gender binary. Gender is not a scientific term and there is no way on paper or through body parts for it to be scientifically proven (Rand 447). Because Softball was created in an effort to eliminate women from Baseball it immediately continued the ideology of a gender binary. In her article “Thinking the Unthinkable” Travers encourages the elimination of “the gendered bifurcation” that is created through sports (78). In other words, Travers also recognizes the way in which sports creates and reinforces the gender binary and therefore encourages the elimination of the socially constructed gender division. Through the socially constructed gender binary a female sport must therefore also be less aggressive, less dangerous, and less important. The equipment used in Softball, particularly the face mask over batting helmets introduced in the 20th century and made mandatory in 2006, exemplifies the gender binary created by society along with masculinity and toughness being superior.

 

Feedback please! Thank you again!

 

Work Cited

Heywood, Leslie “Producing Girls: Empire, Sport, and the Neoliberal Body” in Physical Culture, Power, and the Body, London: Routledge, 2007, 101-120.

Kidd, Bruce. “Sports and Masculinity” Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics. 16:4 (2013) Web. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17430437.2013.785757#.Uw_ofP3VtuY

Rand, Erica. “Court and Sparkle: Kye Allums, John Weir, and Raced Problems”GLQ 19:1 (2013) 435-464

Ring, Jennifer. “America’s Baseball Underground” Journal of Sport & Social Issues. 33:4 (2009) 373-389.

Travers, Ann. “Thinking the Unthinkable: Imagining and ‘Un-American,’ Girl-friendly, Women- and Trans-Inclusive Alternative for Baseball” Journal of Sport & Social Issues. 37:1 (2013) 78-96.

Why is it called Softball?

The obvious difference between a baseball and softball is the size of the ball. But why is it that the ball is called soft when that is not even close to the case? Does the ball derive it’s name from the cultural and gender politics that differentiate men and women?  Or is it something that came to be because of a physical aspect of the object? It just so happens that the name softball comes from the looser winding of the actual ball when being made as compared to abaseball. Due to the influence of society on the distinctions between male and female sports, it’s quite easy for people to assume the name softball came about in contrast to baseball. It’s considered the girl’s version of baseball and thus seen as not as authentic. Through these ideas the softball itself has come to embody the stereotypes of male and female gender and sexuality.

Masculinity and femininity are terms that can’t be defined withoutreferencing the other. Since male and female are opposite sides to the same coin, by definition, if one is a “harder” sport to play, then by default, the other is “softer”, and this can be seen distinctly when you see baseball, a men’s sport, being referenced to as hardball and softball, a women’s sport, being called soft. Women are considered soft, and that may come to be in direct comparison to the male ability to get “hard” or have an erection. This ability is something very exclusively male and by using the terms hard and soft, one without consciously being aware, is bringing in gender into the conversation. It’s extremely emasculating to a man if he can’t perform sexually and remains soft, and this specific act has come to embody what it means to be male. By choosing to call these sports hardball and softball, we cannot ignore the fact that gender in relation to who plays these sports influences how we view them.

In our society today, the hegemonic views of gender are very concrete. Our ideas surrounding femininity encompasses “highlighting physical and emotional characteristics that mark women as different from men (such as small stature, concern for others, physical or emotional fragility, or weakness.” (Bruce, 129) while masculinity is promoted as being strong, tough, and aggressive. Applying these ideologies to these two sports, one can come see how women sports aren’t taken as seriously because, stereotypically females lack that intensity so often embraced and promoted in sports. With this in mind, the idea of coercive sex segregation is very prominent. This term says that “society doesn’t reflect actual sex differences in athletic ability, but instead constructs and enforces the false premise that males are inherently athletically superior to females” (Vertinsky, Jette, and Hofman, 26) It’s very easy to see softball as somehow less than baseball because of this very fact. This one detail is what people get hung up on and through things like mediasport, becomes naturalized. 

“Mediasport valorizes elite, able-bodied, heterosexual, and professional sportsmen, especially those who bring glory to the nation. Simultaneously it excludes, marginalizes, or trivializes athletes who do not fall into this narrow realm, such as sportswomen, veterans, amateurs, children and sports unaligned to nationalism. Through its narratives and images, mediasport reinforces and amplifies the historical connection of sport to men and masculinity” (Bruce, 128) 

By putting women in the same category as veterans and children, it adds to the idea that women are less capable athletically then men. Our society associates children and older people as being less abled than the “typical” person and thus this influences how people view women athletes. 

Media also reproduces this image of softball by publicizing only the softball players that meet the criteria for what the ideal woman should look like. National Pro Fastpitch showed a picture of Jennie Finch on their ad to promote softball and she’s in a very welcoming and non threatening body position. Also, she just happens to be that blonde hair, fit girl that is generally promoted as the American ideal. Contrast this to images of male athletes who are always shown being powerful, intense, and aggressive, such as the Under Armor ad where there is a very muscular man in focus, bulging his muscles and yelling. These ads contribute in reproducing our ideas of masculinity and femininity. It’s ironic how Jennie Finch, one of the best and well known softball players, is used solely as eye candy to promote her sport. She doesn’t show the intense side of the game but just sits and smiles on top of a pile of softballs. One wouldn’t even know it was really a softball ad except for the fact she’s on a field and is surrounded by softballs. Contrast this to the Under Armor ad, where the man in the ad is actually a model but is being portrayed as an ideal athlete. This man is chosen because he represents our social ideas of what an ideal male athlete looks like. By comparing the two ads, one can see how gender and sexuality is being socially constructed and promoted to the general public. They are reinforcing the ideas we have around how we are to view not only men and women but men and women within sports.

These ideas surrounding female athletes and sports have become the hegemonic norm, and topics such as where the name softball originated from has gotten obscured and/or forgotten. Softball got it’s name because of it’s looser wrapping than a baseball thus making “the density of softballs less than that of a hardball (baseball).” (Ho-Song)

The name has nothing to do with which gender plays the sport or the comparison between them. But because softball, is often considered the “girl’s version of baseball” (iSport) no one really knows this fact and it’s become assumed that the name came to be derived from the direct relation of being baseball for girls. 

In terms of sexuality, it’s interesting that when you remove the comparison between baseball and softball, softball becomes a highly masculine sport, assumed to have a large number of lesbian players. Why is it that in comparison to baseball, softball is seen as a lesser sport, but within the world of female sports, the stereotypes surrounding softball are highly masculine? 

The idea within softball is if one plays this sport, then they must be gay or at least assumedly. The reason for this might be because softball itself  “requires speed, strength, and endurance” which are traits typically associated with being masculine. Also, it may be because to play sports, “[young women] must learn to embody the ‘‘masculine’’ language and values of that arena – self-control, determination, cool, emotional discipline, mastery, and so on’.” (Carlson, 80) Because the games are so similar (men and women do exactly the same movements and develop the same skills) the connection that women are thus lesbian is an easy one to make. This is highly recognizable because a woman who portrays the slightest bit of masculinity, is in turn contrasting femininity and the socially acceptable ideas of what a woman does. People don’t know how to think outside of the hegemonic box developed by society and thus players get stereotyped as being butch and lesbian.

In the case of Lance Armstrong, due to his diagnosis with testicular cancer, he had to have a testicle removed and this threatened his masculinity. “They found that the loss of a testicle was interpreted as a challenge to masculinity; the anatomical structure served as an important marker of identity” (Casper and Moore, 161) This part of the anatomy is a mark of a man’s sexuality and with this being said, the aspects such as male genitalia and the functions they can do with that in contrast to females, is a highly important marker of what makes a man a man. Loosing a testicle, like staying soft, puts the man in a situation where they don’t fit into the socially acceptable constraints of manliness and by default feel emasculated or somehow feminized. This is similar to the stereotypes within softball because the visual and physical indication of what is masculine and feminine is what determines how society perceives someone. Lance having a testicle removed somehow made in more feminine because physically he was “less than the average man” and girls playing softball are seen as more masculine because of their intensity and performance of the same basic skills as baseball players.

Women are considered soft for other reason too. Being the opposite of hard, and femininity being the opposite of masculinity, anything considered masculine by default, cannot be considered feminine. A man is supposed to be powerful and strong and by contrast, it leaves a woman to be powerless and weak. You can see this in the sport of figure skating. When Johnny Weir demonstrates a more graceful and “flamboyant” style of figure skating, he is automatically coined as gay despite what his sexual orientation might be. (Rand, 446) Weir’s gracefulness in skating doesn’t represent the power and intense aspects associated with the male version of his sport, and thus it makes him stand out. As Russian male figure skater Evengi Plushenko said, “Without a quad, it’s women’s skating” (Rand, 446) Plushenko is referring to the very technically hard and powerful quad jump which most women can’t do due to the immense power it takes to perform the trick. Weir by contrast, has a style of skating that is typically that of what one would see performed by a female. Weir challenges the hegemonic norm of what we expect to see when we watch a male figure skater perform and so our way to cope with it is to question his sexuality. This is like the softball where one aspect of a sport comes to represent the cultural ideas we have of gender and sexuality and who’s allowed to perform them.

Also, like softball being considered a lesbian sport, cheerleading is considered a girl’s sport, which subjects men into stereotypical ideas of being gay or girly. There is a constant struggle for male cheerleaders between being in a highly feminized sport and holding on to their masculinity. An example of this is smiling. A cheerleader form the State Squad said “much of the time putting on a smile is like putting on makeup.” (Grindstaff and West, 157) Her comparison of smiling and makeup further emphasizes how emasculated a male cheerleader might feel participating in this sport. Makeup is traditionally a woman’s thing and in this comparison, asking a male cheerleader to smile is equivalent to asking them to apply makeup. To make up for this loss of masculinity, male cheerleaders participating in these actions display toughness and lack of emotions, which is considered by society as having a hard shell. By contrast, being supportive and emotional makes one a softie and are considered girly traits. “Studies that have tried to posit a more fundamental distinction between femininity and masculinity have often drawn on women’s roles as mothers and caretakers” (Carlson, 4) Being a spirit leader puts these men into a more encouraging and care taking role which contrasts the socially acceptable idea of masculinity. However, to counteract this aspect, the guys perform their masculinity. Even though like the girls, they’re there for encouragement and spirit, they aren’t forced to smile and use their brute force to throw the girls in the air. Also, their size in comparison to the female cheerleaders is drastic and further reinforce the stereotypes and societal assumptions of what a man and woman look like. 

This is just like the case of Caster Semenya in that “suspicions [surrounding her gender] emerged because of Semenya’s, muscular physique.” (Cooky, Dykus, Dworkin, 40). This aspect in coordination with her exceptional performances in track and field, made questions about her gender spread like wildfire. “Media articles framed the suspicions as emerging because of her fast times in the World Championship (i.e., she’s too fast to be a ‘real’ woman) or to her fast improvement over the brief course of her running career.” (Cooky, Dykus, Dworkin, 39) These aspects of Semenya seemed too masculine or too unbelievable for a woman and so her gender was questioned. The hegemonic ideas of femininity and masculinity come into play because even though Semenya was participating as a woman, her physical appearance and performance was being seen as masculine and because of the association of high performance or a muscular build with being a man, it led the public to automatically challenge the authenticity of Caster Semenya’s records and herself as a woman. These assumptions we have about male athletics overruled the fact that she was in fact a woman and that maybe it was possible for a woman to have success and excel at something.

Caster Semenya’s case is exactly like how softball being a girl’s sport, is seen as less than baseball. In both situations, the ideas behind masculinity and femininity determine how we perceive something. Even though Semenya’s gender contradicts her excellent performance in our society’s view, it should’t make her any less of a woman. The same goes for softball, just because in comparison to baseball and the term soft is in the name, doesn’t mean we should degrade the sport in any way, especially by thinking it’s not as intense a sport. In the video clip by Fox Sport Network, they prove that softball is indeed harder to hit than a baseball as well as having more force upon impact. They state that it takes “.395 secs to react to a baseball and only .350 secs to react to a softball” (FSN) Also, the softball when pitched against the force plate shattered the plate in comparison to the baseball which came in with a force reading of 2411 lbs of force.  It’s the long standing established view of what’s masculine and feminine that are the problem. We feel like we need to categorize and separate everything mad so when we come across something that doesn’t quite fit into the categories, we freak out and project that insecurity onto whatever person or thing that makes us uncomfortable.

All in all the softball is a great representation of the hegemonic ideas of sexuality and gender. When looking at baseball and softball through the lens of the hard and softball, we can see the clear division of gender. Hard relating to the man’s ability to get an erection, and soft a woman’s lack of a phallus. When we analyze the name, it comes to represent the ideology of women as being “soft” and non aggressive, which makes them seem less athletic than men. This idea gets put on all different aspects within sports, such as softball, figure skating, and cheerleading. Also, this takes away from the physical aspect which gets ignored completely in relation to the name and we solely focus on the cultural definition of it.

 

Works Cited

Bruce, Toni. “Reflections on Communication and Sport: On Women and femininities.” Communication and Sport. (2013): n. page. Web. 7 Mar. 2014. <https://sportcultures.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/communication-sport-2013-bruce-125-37.pdf>

Vertinsky, Patricia, Shannon Jette, and Annette Hofman . “Gender Justice and Gender Politics at the Local, National, and International Level over the Challenge of Women’s Ski Jumping.” ‘Skierinas’ in the Olympics. n. page. Print. <https://sportcultures.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/vertinsky-skierinas.pdf>.

Ho-Song, Chul-Ho . “Gameball.” Google Patents. Grant US4880233 A, 14 Nov 1989. Web. 7 Mar 2014. <http://www.google.com/patents/US4880233>.

iSport, iSport:Softball. iSport. Web. 4 Mar 2014. <http://softball.isport.com/softball-guides/the-difference-between-baseball-softball>.

Carlson, Jennifer. “Subjects of stalled revolution: A theoretical consideration of contemporary American femininity.” Feminist Theory. (2011): n. page. Print. <http://fty.sagepub.com/content/12/1/75> 

Casper, Monica J., and Lisa Jean Moore. “It Takes Balls: Lance Armstrong and the Triumph of American Masculinity.” Politics of Visibility. (2009): n. page. Print. <https://sportcultures.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/casper-moore-it-takes-balls.pdf>. 

Rand, Eric. “Kye Allums, Johnny Weir, and Raced Problems in Gender Authenticity.” Court and Sparkle. n. page. Print. <https://sportcultures.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/rand-court-and-space.pdf>.

Grindstaff, Laura, and Emily West. “”Hands on Hips, Smiles on Lips!” Gender, Race, and the Performance of SPirit in Cheerleading.” Text and Performance Quarterly. (2010): n. page. Print. <https://sportcultures.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/grindstaff-hands-on-hips.pdf>.

Cooky, Cheryl, Ranissa Dycus, and Shari L. Dworkin. “”What Makes a Woman a Woman?” Versus “OurFirst Lady of Sport”: A Comparative Analysis of the United States and the South African Media Coverage of Caster Semenya.” Journal of Sport & Social Issues. (2012): n. page. Print. < https://sportcultures.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/journal-of-sport-and-social-issues-2013-cooky-31-56.pdf>.

KFlick, . “Why do lesbians like softball so much?.” http://www.midleap.com. MidLeap. Web. 7 Mar 2014. <http://www.midleap.com/2010/04/lesbiansoftball/>.

 Price, Cathy. “What’s so soft about a softball?.” http://www.davisenterprise.com. The Davis Enterprise, 07 Apr 2011. Web. 7 Mar 2014. <http://www.davisenterprise.com/sports/whats-so-soft-about-a-softball/>.

 FSN Sport Science-Episode 7- Myths- Jennie Finch

Be a BEAST

“Be a Beast” and “Beast Mode” are phrases I hear often in the world of sports and athleticism. It evokes qualities of strength and power in individuals geared to help them perform their best and excel in what they do. It inspires people to reach within and go back to a primitive state of mind to become animalistic and lessen their polished human behavior while reverting from normal culture ideals into a masculine ideology that poses and pushes strength onto men. The dictionary.com definition of beast is “the crude animal nature of humans and lower animals” which shows the beast is found within humans in certain cultural qualities. The world of sports is full of stereotypes, games, ideologies and discourses that are centralized around common themes. Every sport has its own culture and ideology unique to those who engage in the sport and those who view the sport. The dual sport culture seen between spectators and participants is noticeable in modern military culture through events and training. The military culture has spread to everyday culture in structure, form and process. American culture especially has embraced the cultural idea of boot camp (the basic training camp) all military recruits endure and reappropriate it to fit the needs of other activities. I chose to study boot camp in the form of fitness, strength and flexibility to explore why the military culture is so widely embraced by the population. Throughout my experiences in boot camp and my research of its process I noticed the common themes associated with boot camp seen in many sports. Boot camp contains both an individual and team aspects that are seen in many sports. The ability for an individual to excel and be a beast is a masculine, primitive, and natural experience which is used to better the team. The goal of this paper is to explore the masculine aspects of military culture in relation to sport culture and ask why we have a specific military culture founded on a masculine ideology that relates to the overall theme of “be a beast” that takes us back to a primitive culture. Military operations, military tactics and military culture in itself is extremely masculine due to its prominence of exposing tough and masculine men in harsh conditions while pushing them to find their inner beast. Today my goal is to explore the idea that a beast reverts us back to primitive culture, the military culture is masculine and embraces the idea of the beast and because “be a beast” is a cultural phenomenon anyone can be a beast under the right circumstances.

Beast is a historically and culturally defined term that has been reappropriated to humans and athletes especially because of the amazing fleets they overcome that is a resultant of their hard-work. In his book Sport: A Cultural History Richard Mandell claims “if one accepts the belief that sport antedates man, implicit is the suggestion that man himself may be in essence a beast”(Mandell 4) This provides the idea where primitive culture allows mankind to revert back to animalistic qualities and beast like tendencies because sport could have came before man. If sport came before man, then mankind uses pre-evolutionary phases of behavior in sport as instinct. The instinct humans have on the battlefield and military are associated with a more competitive state of mind that one would otherwise not have. In the historical context of America where the militarization aspect is huge and relies heavily on the physique and abilities of the male body. This idea relates directly back to the time of when a beast is culturally seen as a masculine male figure as seen in childhood movies such as “Beauty and the Beast” where Beast was this large, scary, manly, hairy figure. Historically it touches on slavery where the African American male would be called a beast because of his ability to work in the fields and execute strong and brutal tasks that the white men could not. This historical context also considers the brute force and tough exterior needed to perform grueling tasks that can be appropriated to the beast-like figure we see within athletes and soldiers today. I choose to relate sport to military and military to beast in a circular fashion to show they all relate to each other under the umbrella idea of masculinity. I feel that under hegemonic masculinity that is characterized by the strength and power you find in sport, athleticism and the beast character, takes on many adjectives associated with the rigorous tasks of the military.

Lieutenant Colonel Karen Dunivun, a PhD in the United States Air Force defines military culture claiming “Military culture is learned (via socialization training such as boot camp); broadly shared by its members (e.g., saluting); adaptive to changing condition (e.g., integration of blacks); and symbolic in nature (e.g., rank insignia and language jargon make sense only within a military context).(Dunivin 533). Military culture is structured and supported by the people who perform it and the audience on the opposite side of the spectra. This is seen in sports culture as well as between athletes and their practice times, team-building huddles, cultural terminology specific to each sports rules and guidelines and the symbols of objects relevant to the sport and referee calls. A direct relationship between the structure of the military can be drawn to the sports arenas. The idea of being an athlete to be great and excel in what you do is seen in being a soldier. The similarities drawn between military culture and sports culture and between athletes and soldiers is why I believe boot camp is a sport. Also, within these cultures we see a primitive version of ourselves that bring out the beast trapped inside us all. Military culture embraces the beast-like figure because it encourages tough physique and promotes completing intensely difficult tasks. The primitive nature we see in militarization is due to the specific place where we work hard and as a result get sweaty, dirty and gross because we do things that we would not normally do outside of a gym environment. Dunivun also says “Military culture is characterized by its combat, masculine-warrior paradigm”(Dunivin 533) This takes into account both military and primitive aspects of the sport behind being a beast. The warrior paradigm is accounting for the strength and power needed to be successful in combat. Strength and power is also needed to be successful in the war zone found in a sports arena better known as a field or court. The warrior figure is similar to the Beast figure in that they are tough, idealized and hard-workers. The act of being a warrior that is characterized through military combat is portrayed in athletes “being a beast” in their respective sports, meaning that they fight to win.

The umbrella theme I find that surrounds military culture and sport culture is the masculinity that is exhibited by the members. One place in particular masculinity is exhibited is in physical physique which is something readily visible on each person based the cultural norms associated with gender. In the research article “Masculinity, Sexuality and the Body of Male Soldiers” by Nyameka Mankayi from the University of KwaZulu-Natal Pietermartizburg, she states “men’s bodies which are expected to be tough, muscular and macho on many cultural contexts are particularly central, valued and associated with social and sexual success in military contexts.” In military boot camp they shape civilian men into military men. They go through intense physical, mental and emotional training. The fitness boot camp has reappropriated the technique to fit a civilian lifestyle to achieve similar results. Military boot camp brings out an animalistic side in soldiers the way fitness boot camp allows civilians to embrace their primitive side and complete strenuous work outs. In the image below published by airforcemag.com

you see recruits on all fours crawling through dirt while a sergeant with a wide mouth and vein popping out of his head is presumably yelling at the soldiers on the ground showing yet another animalistic aspect we seen present in military and sport culture. Yelling, fighting, and crawling through the dirt is primitive unpolished behavior practiced by those serving in the military. Its almost as if the sergeant is in control or the owner of the animal and training him verbally through commands. Lieutenant Colonel Karen Dunivun herself says “This ‘masculine mystique’ is evident during basic training when traditional images of independent, competitive, aggressive, and virile males are promoted and rewarded.” (Dunivin 536) The terms “competitive” and “aggressive” which are heavily associated with military ideals are also associated with the animal aspect of survival of the fittest where only the best survive. In a sense you see a type of Social Darwinism present in military culture where the ideal candidate is this beast type figure who exhibits all the masculine qualities that involve pushing and exceeding one’s body’s physical limits. People in the military are put to the test through boot camp and only the strongest ones able to endure the training are able to fight in combat. The same goes for in a fitness class because it is noticeable that only the strong survive or are able to finish the workout.

My own personal experience with boot camp associates myself with military culture, while finding my inner beast through embodying a masculine spirit appropriated by the discourses I use to associate military boot camp with fitness boot camp. I went into boot camp thinking I was taking a fitness class that would make me bad ass enough to be in the military because I had the cultural discourse embedded in my mind that boot camp was masculine, tough and brutal because that is what is represented by the military. Boot camp was tough, brutal and masculine but not in the bad ass way I though it was going to be, it was about “being a beast”. By being a beast I mean pushing through what hurt and continuing with your rotation until it was completed regardless of how much you want to quit. You mentally and physically adapt to a “beast mode” that allows you to push yourself even further. Being a beast is not gender specific, being a beast is an individual achievement that each person is capable of regardless of age, sex, race or ability. The Comm111T course focused on the differences and the splits that caused the divisions that we faced culturally in relation to sports, yet being a beast is something we can all relate too due to the primitive animalistic nature humans have evolved from and revert back to in times needing an increase in strength. Every single human being is a product of years and years of evolving from an uncivilized to a civilized behavior.

What I learned by doing boot camp was that although you run through the course individually you work as a team. It is a no man left behind type of sport. You work hard to display your own athleticism and work independently which is a very masculine quality to have that goes back to the time of separate spheres where men would go out and do work while woman would be home makers. Working as a team is a very feminine quality also going back to the time of separate spheres where woman would be care takers and care for the family yet, both of these qualities are seen in the military. Men are often working the front line while woman are nurses and hold desk jobs that show the ideals of masculinity and femininity relating back to the separate spheres. However, the feminine quality of teamwork is not enough to out weigh the prominent masculinity seen. The same can be said for myself, as a female figure not molding to the typical masculine stereotype or holding a male gendered physique. Just because I’m doing boot camp as a tiny female figure does not lessen the masculinity of the sport because the military and sport cultures that surround it is so highly subjected to masculine qualities. The most relevant idea is that I as the feminine figure become tougher and more masculine by doing boot camp.

I also learned that boot camp is difficult no matter what context you take it in. If it is an athletic boot camp structured program then it will push you to your physical limits. It does not discriminate between age, race or gender since fitness boot camp does not use weight and focuses on strength, flexibility and cardio it is an individualized workout that makes you feel like a beast if you can get through it. It is an emotion evoked through physically and mentally taxing events. It is true that certain people are better at certain aspects than others, but that is the individual part of fitness boot camp. The individual experiences each person gains through boot camp and the own goals people strive for give them the ability to be a beast. Since being a beast is found within each person looking back from before years and years of evolution, it is attainable if you are pushed to that limit. If you are cultured with the learning, sharing, adapting and symbolic aspects of what you do, you can embrace the physical and mental aspects associated with the military that are seen in sports. Having that structured mentality allows you to reach within yourself, to achieve your goal, even if it means finding your inner beast. Those who say “Be a Beast” are in essence working to ensure you find your best athletic self and you go into the beast state of mind popularly known as “Beast Mode.”

Works Cited

Mankayi, Nyameka. “Masculinity,Sexuality and the Body of Male Soldiers.” Research Gate. Research Gate, 2008. Web. 25 Feb. 2014. <http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228485732_MASCULINITY_SEXUALITY_AND_THE_BODY_OF_MALE_SOLDIERS>.

Dunivin, K. O. “Military Culture: Change and Continuity.” Armed Forces & Society 20.4 (1994): 531-47. Print.

Mandell, Richard D. Sport: A Cultural History. New York: Columbia Univ., 1994. Print.

PHOTO CREDIT: http://www.airforcemag.com/magazinearchive/pages/2008/february%202008/0208training.aspx

“Beast.” Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2014.

America: The home of the brave

Major League Baseball is a sport that exemplifies the characteristics of the All American male but what exactly does that mean and does the female fit in this world? Why is it that women are constantly belittled and degraded in the sport of baseball? Is softball the same as baseball? Why are women not playing professional baseball? Is gender construction reinforced or challenged in baseball? Do these ideologies represent a bigger picture of the nation? These are the kind of questions that I had throughout my research this quarter. The cultural discourse around baseball in regards to gender is one that essentially will not end. Though there is an infinite amount of things surrounding gender in baseball, I possibly cannot talk about them all in one paper. But I do want to bring to light the type of hyper-normalizations that has happened in baseball. The issue of women in the sport is what mostly brings my attention to the sport of baseball. Even though there is a presence of women in baseball they are seen as inferior which precludes to a bigger concept of the role of the nation. The ideologies that play in the discourse of baseball is only to reinforce the patriarchal order that America wants to exemplify. In order to get down to the specifics I am only going to focus on the cultural discourse that surrounds the female baseball player. In analyzing this discourse I will bring examples from my experience with the sport, movie references, and also scholarly texts.

Baseball is a sport where gender differences are heavily prevalent and it is shown through the clip (above). The clip above is from the film “The Sandlot,” that focuses on the lives of a group of friends that live and breathe baseball. The scene above is the group of friends having an altercation with the rival group of baseball players. Ham (boy in orange striped shirt) is going back and forth with Phillips (boy in the varsity jacket) throwing insults at each other from the way they smell to their baseball skills. The argument ends when Ham concludes that Phillips “plays ball like a girl.” As soon as Ham said that to Phillips, it was as if time had stopped because everyone got really quiet with blank expressions. The expressions of the friends insinuate that Ham’s remark is the worst insult that anyone can possibly say to a baseball player. Phillips did not know how to recover from Ham’s remark and had become silent. After that moment of silence Ham’s friends burst out in laughs implying that Phillips’ baseball skills are a joke. Ham’s remark is what escalated the two groups to have an even bigger feud. But what does it mean to “play ball like a girl?” In a fantasy gender neutral world the words “you play ball like a girl,” should not insinuate any negative connotation but in the actual male dominated sphere that is present in baseball it implies Phillips’ inability to play the sport. This presents the stereotype that women cannot play baseball. This sets the standards on who can and cannot play baseball, clearly excluding the role of women in the sport. It objectifies the abilities of women playing the sport. Remarks like “you play ball like a girl,” have become “an accepted part of sports. When directed at men, they signal that feminine characteristics are incompatible with athletics” (Reaves 303). Not only does that remark marginalize women but men as well. There are clear lines that are being defined on what it means to be a baseball player, which brings me to the next issue of the female athlete and whether or not she fits in that role.

Baseball has always been a huge aspect of my life from playing pickup games with the neighborhood kids, going to major league baseball games, to supporting the local little league teams but I never played the sport competitively. Growing up I always wanted to play baseball at a competitive level but there was a part of me that knew that would not happen because of the male dominated discourse around baseball. As a little kid you do not think about concepts like masculinity, dominance, gender constructions, but nonetheless they still take part in your everyday life. It did not occur to me the depth as to how much male dominance plays in baseball until high school. I have been playing softball since I was about 11 but I never liked it because I always wanted to play baseball. I would start practicing my skills for baseball because I wanted to try out for my high school’s baseball team in the 10th grade. Before baseball tryouts I had gone up to the varsity baseball coach and asked him (in all seriousness), if it were possible that I could try out for the baseball team. The baseball coach immediately laughed and proceeded to tell me to “stick to softball.” I did not think much of it at the time but now that I am working on this research paper it infuriates me because the coach had shut me down before giving me the chance to showcase my skills. Instead of the coach challenging the social construction of gender in baseball he clearly reinforced them. Being rejected from baseball tryouts is all I could think about when reading that “gender is the central concept mediating social structures, forms of communication and social interactions among players and coaches, symbolic representations of female athletes, ideologies of inclusion and exclusion of amateur and professional baseball in the United States” (Cohen 1). In this case gender laid out the basis for exclusion. Women not playing baseball has always bothered me but I never took into account how deep the role of patriarchy is.

The role of patriarchy in baseball is a huge deal because “no single social institution, with the exception of the military, has influenced the cultural construction of masculinity more strongly or has justified in biological terms more directly the inferiority of the female body resulting in the acceptance of gender-based discrimination” (Cohen 2). The fact that the male dominated framework in baseball is being compared to the military it starts to question society. Why is it that baseball is lagging so much towards the inclusion of women? It has a lot to do with the ideologies that society has, and until that starts to change nothing will make it easier for women to participate in baseball. Or at least deemed as acceptable. This patriarchy role that is existent in baseball reminds me of the separate spheres that was discussed in class. Separate spheres is basically the idea where men and women accommodate their lives to different worlds. The sphere that men are attached to is the public sphere which includes the work force, and in this case the public sphere of sports. In terms of women the sphere that they fall under is the private sphere of the home where it is seen as unlady like to play sports. Many other sports such as basketball and soccer have progressed in the inclusion of women except baseball. The question is why? It all comes down to ideologies because one can not say that women do not have the skills to play baseball. It is interesting because there is this belief that women have biologically smaller body frames and that it is one of the main restrictions why baseball is not for them but “baseball is a particularly interesting case study in this regard since it is a sport where, until recently, smaller male athletes have excelled” (Cohen 2). People love to put the blame on biological differences but in baseball those differences are not supported because in actuality if women were able to play they would excel at the game. Baseball has become essentially a “sport as an arena of ideological battles over gender relations has been given short shrift throughout sociology of sport literature” (Messner 199). Because gender relations have been an ongoing topic, society has let it pass by as if nothing is wrong because these hegemonic ideologies surrounding gender binaries in sport have become hyper-normalized. Hyper-normalized ideologies inevitably become a way of life and that is what has occurred in baseball. Baseball is one of the main sports to not challenge these gender binaries and is continuing to follow a patriarchal role that the nation follows. The “belief that inequality is part of the natural order,” (Messner 207) is exactly what is occurring in baseball. This mentality goes back to my experience of getting rejected from baseball tryouts simply because I am a girl. Even my own mentality showed the hyper-normalized ideologies because at the time I did not see anything wrong with his statement, my thought was “Oh yeah, he is right, I am girl, what am I thinking.”

Until ideologies around women in baseball start to change, then progress will not occur. There is already a history of women playing professional baseball during World War II which goes to shows that women are indeed capable of playing the sport. Instead of baseball progressing towards inclusion and equity of gender it has regressed and has gotten deep in the role of patriarchy. Many people love the game of baseball but very few challenge the ideologies that surround the sport. Justine Siegal is one of those few to challenge the ideologies towards the inclusion of women in baseball. According to ESPNW, Siegal is a woman that pitched to six different major league baseball teams during their batting practice in 2011’s spring training. Right there is a start for women entering the male dominate sphere of baseball. There is no exact time when it will happen that women break into major league baseball but in time it will. It just has a lot to do with the change on society’s (men and women) ideologies. Hopefully in this generation we are able to see Siegal pitch in the big leagues as well as other women.

WORKS CITED:

Borzi, Pat. “Women are Knocking on Baseball’s Door.” ESPNW. WEB. 2011
http://espn.go.com/espnw/news/article/6514843/women-pro-sports-women-knocking-baseball-door

Cohen, Marilyn. No Girls in the Clubhouse: The Exclusion of Women from Baseball. McFarland and Company, Inc. Publishers. 2009
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=egafzmPMDIgC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=women+marginalized+in+baseball&ots=hAywXcFFTi&sig=ch05TO4C-4Y_LYQZbJHOAvifFKE#v=onepage&q=women%20marginalized%20in%20baseball&f=false

Messner, Michael A. “Sports and Male Domination: The Female Athlete as Contested Ideological Terrain.” Sociology of Sport Journal. 1988 197-211
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=09f0df3e-d6b8-4f0f-a8e0-755db1ceb048%40sessionmgr4003&vid=2&hid=4209

Reaves, Rhonda. “There’s no Crying in Baseball”: Sports and the Legal and Social Construction of Gender. Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice. 2000-2001
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jgrj4&div=16&g_sent=1&collection=journals#301

“The Sandlot Clip “you Play Ball like a Girl”” YouTube.

Code of Honor

“There is a fine line between how much violence causes entertainment and how much violence causes social disgust. When it comes to episodes of violence where the violence is kept to a minimum and no one really gets hurt, fighting is entertaining, and even encouraged” (Lewinson, 109-110).

Fighting in all sports is never permitted, and usually results in fines, suspensions, or in some cases complete termination. Violence in professional sports is never condoned and completely frowned upon, except for one case. In the context of the National Hockey League, fighting on the ice is not permitted and against the rules, but has been a culturally embedded aspect of the sport since its beginnings. When the gloves are dropped, the linesmen allow the players to go at it 1-on-1 until someone drops to the ice, creating what I have perceived as controlled violence.

My objective for this last portion of our class is to argue the notion that fighting in professional ice hockey is a moral consideration that serves to the interests of the fans, the players themselves, and the overall culture of the sport. My argument will include the themes of violence in entertainment, masculinity, and militarization. I will use my research and personal experiences with the sport to further support my argument.

Militarization and nationalism play an enormous role in the hegemonic and masculine norms in professional ice hockey. In “Football and the Nation”, by Hugo Benavides, the example of military like strategy is illustrated through football, which is a sport, that in terms of rough play, closely relates to ice hockey. “With its military-like strategy on the field and its culture of conflict and male solidarity, it possesses many of the markers that reflect the identity of the United States both at home and abroad, especially in the present climate of counter-terrorism: male bravado, war metaphors, competitive struggle for physical supremacy, extreme physical and emotional vulnerability, the recognition of rule and law, and an overriding celebration of the self-made individual” (Benavides). Militarization does not directly link to fighting, but this sense of masculine norms, rough behavior, and national/team pride all intertwine to create an arena where violent acts are more than able to occur. Believe it or not but in 2009n the NHL teamed with the U.S. Army to embed values and culture codes to players on the ice. “ The NHL has recently partnered with the U.S. Army to create themes and values for professional game play (NHL, 2009). Adapted from the U.S. Army code, they are as follows: (a) Loyalty: Bear faith and allegiance to you team…(b) Duty… (c) Respect… (d) Selfless Service… (e) Integrity… (f) Courage: Face fear, danger, or adversity even if it compromises your own safety… (g) Dignity” (Lewinson, 107). With evidence, it is clear that militarization, masculinity, and nationality serve to the cultural conduct of the NHL and give players codes to play by. With this linkage the NHL becomes a demonstration of Americas military, therefore creating what is known as ‘American Exceptionalism.’ When we identify what seems to be the root of this hegemonic masculine domain, it is then possible to move forward and begin to explain how fighting in the NHL serves as a form of entertainment.

Whether you are at home with a group of friends, or actually at a live NHL hockey game, the initiation of a 1-on-1 bout will get you out of your seat and will literally pull you into the game. My experience with ice hockey serves as evidence to what I’m arguing. As I stated in my first blog post, I had never watched a single hockey game until I decided to choose ice hockey as my sport. What was amazing to me was how an actual fight broke out during a game, which ironically was the first game I had ever watched. As the camera veered closer to the players fighting, fans on the outside of the rink were seen howling, and banging their fists on the tall, protective glass screens. As human beings, we seem to be intrigued to things that we are not used seeing in the media. With no prior knowledge of the sport, I got up and began yelling and cheering the two guys blow-for-blow. Because this fighting is technically not allowed, but happens regardless is what makes for good television. It is the fact the violence is controlled by referees, like a boxing match. As fans we feel safe because the linesmen are controlling the bout to make sure nothing heinous happens. Besides the actual fight or vicious check on another player, the only time the fans/audience are up out of their seats is when a fight breaks loose. Not only the fans, but also team players that are on the bench are up, cheering on their teammate engaging in the fight. A quote by Kenneth Colburn Jr. in “Honor, Ritual and Violence in Ice Hockey” justifies why the fist-fight in hockey has a cultural significance to the players themselves: “Fist fights, unlike stick assaults, are viewed by players as legitimate, if formally proscribed, form of assault; they are not generally considered to be violent acts… As I have heard many players, fans, and officials say on numerous occasions, fist-fights are “part of the game”” (Colburn Jr., 156-157). In a sense, fighting in ice hockey seems to forge deep emotions, whether it is the fans, teammates, and especially the players in the fight. Another personal experience dates back to when I attended my first ever, live hockey game when UCSD played Chapman. In my “Learning Through Doing” blog, I highlighted my experience and went into detail when explaining my experience in watching the sport. Although A fight didn’t break loose, the fact that players were getting checked (tackled) left and right into the surrounding glass shields protecting the fans. It was events like those that jolted me out of my seat.

This begs the question: Why do hockey players fight? Hockey players fight for a couple of reasons, the first being that fighting is a way for a player to stand up for himself. Using the same article by Kenneth Colburn Jr. we are given a great example on how hockey players must police themselves which reads: “It is clear that players claim the right, whether officially sanctioned or not, to personally settle disputes concerning treatment of each other. This is reflected in the statement by players that every person has to “stick up for himself,” and it is informally acknowledged by other players, referees, and other officials…The very fact that participants of fist-fights are given relatively lenient penalties (usually five minutes in the penalty box), rather than ejected from the game, suggests the implicit cooperation of officials in permitting this code of honor to operate” (Colburn Jr, 165). For example, if a player is constantly being checked by his opponents stick and is going unnoticed, he may instigate a fight to make his opponent responsible for what he did. If the fight goes in the favor of the player getting hit with cheap shots, his opponent will no longer bug him. This results in sitting in the penalty box for five minutes. In essence it allows players to fend for themselves and police the game. Not only does fighting allow players to fend for themselves, it proves as a way to change the journey and momentum of a game. As I explained in the entertainment section of the essay, a bout can provide a newfound vigor and spirit to a team. When you witness a fight during a game, whether it be live or at home, the players on the bench are standing up, leaning over and banging their sticks on the ice. It provides an increase in energy to both teams when their teammates land a blow. “Player: Say, if you’re down and the game kind of drags along, you know, a good fight, not a real dirty fight or nothing, a good fight, if your team wins it or comes out pretty good in it, then it gets the guys going more. It gets sort of contagious and you know, that type of thing, and let’s go out there and show them we can do it” (Colburn Jr., 167). The fact that a controlled fistfight in the NHL does not amount to a player’s suspension or ejection, it proves that fighting in hockey shall remain a moral consideration and kept alive in the culture of the NHL.

Ice hockey is a game of honor, self-reliance, and spirit. I myself to not condone violence or any type of illegal foul play, but as I have experienced the world of professional ice hockey, I have come to the conclusion that the all natural, controlled fist fight in the sport serves to benefit all aspects of the sport including the teams, players, linesmen, and the fans. It is the fact that this form of controlled violence serves to be one of the most sacred and morally considered facets of professional ice hockey. This social ritual should be left alone, to forever preserve a sport that thrives off of some good ole’ roughhouse ice skating.

Works Cited

Jr., Kenneth Colburn. “Honor, Ritual and Violence in Ice Hockey.” The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers Canadiens De Sociologie 10.2 (1985): 153-70. JSTOR.

Lewinson, Ryan T., and Oscar E. Palma. “The Morality of Fighting in Ice Hockey: Should It Be Banned?” Journal of Sport & Social Issues 36 (2012): 106-12. SAGE Journals.

Benavides, Hugo. “Football and the Nation: Producing American Culture – Oppositional Conversations Issue I.” 1. N.p., 2012.

The Media Culture Of Basketball

In today’s generation the way advertising and media is presented to us become a viable factor in how we interpret the conveyed messages they offer consumers. Advertising companies do wonders with brands to mimic styles and culture so that individuals will be interpellated by the messages they share. The messages they share are beyond just promotion for the brand, instead allowing viewers to engage on something beyond the boundaries of just selling a product (Wakefiel).

When talking about sports and the media that surrounds the dominant hegemonic culture, there are arguments that they present topics of male dominance, political powers, racial stereotyping and more. Basketball is seen as a predominant black sport, which has western ideologies that surround it. In the NBA world we see advertisements day and night about the big time players of the game, and the so-called “MVP”. With these advertisements and the interpellation that accompanies it, the NBA culture becomes a target to fans and consumers.

I aim to further explore how media plays a role in basketball culture, more specifically the NBA, and how racial stereotypes, black masculinity, and among other topics discussed in this class effect fan culture and the overall sport culture. This will be accomplished by analyzing my personal experience with the Lakers fan culture and analyses on NBA media coverage of the sport to further explain how the NBA is presented in the media. Also, how the NBA creates a militarization culture around the sport.

The fan culture that surrounds basketball is extremely fascinating because so many people become emotionally invested in a sport that they are not physically participating in. When I was watching the Lakers game with my friends I noticed that this sport brought us all together to one place and we were connected for one cause. As the television turned on and the game began, all other arguments that people were having just dissolved in thin air and we came to agree on one common goal, in which the Lakers will win. This phenomenon never seizes to amaze me, the culture that encompasses basketball is overpowering.

The reason I am describing my experience is because I want to compare it to the concepts of militarization and nationalism that we learned in class. Militarization, being the way in which a sport is mimicking war-like qualities, and nationalism being the way in which people or fans are being loyal to their sport and promoting it through their own presence and actions. These two concepts are a part of the overall image that a country wants to succeed others through sports, but when looking at a smaller scale of basketball we can also say that within the sport there are actions of militarization and nationalism. Each sport can become an individual country that each fan, or army, wants to succeed the others.

The sense of nationalism comes out through the pride of each fan for their sport. When you attend a Lakers game everyone is decked out in basketball gear and they are displaying to others that they are emotionally and politically invested in their team. These fans are identifying themselves with this certain team, so whatever the team does they support it and whatever the team believes in is what this fan also relates to. This process of fan culture might seem a little far-fetched when comparing it to militarization and nationalism, but when entering the Staples Center people in purple and gold jerseys blind you with their dedication to the sport.

During the games the use of media is also present, when I talk about media in relation to fan culture I am talking about the forms of Twitter, Facebook, and other media coverage websites for the games. When fans watch the games they feel this need to reiterate their feelings of what they are watching and boast their opinions of what plays are doing at the game. This gives fans power and also gives fans a closer connection to the sport. This closer connection is built through the professional players and the way they utilize media to stay in contact with their fans.

Twitter for example is a social media site where people can update friends and co-workers about what they are doing, or feeling, in a 140 characters or less. Now relating the usage of Twitter back to basketball, we can see how fans might develop a sense of nationalism through the sport. If athletes have twitter accounts they can directly “tweet” fans, and if journalists have accounts they can immediately give fans updates on what’s occurring during a game, or during draft season. This all builds a fan base higher because the experience between athletes and their followers become smaller, and it becomes more personal, the distance between the two is cut to one-on-one contact (Hutchins). According to Hutchins, Twitter also becomes a branding tool for the athletes and their overall team.

Aside from the positive feedback Twitter can exploit, there are also negative connotations to go with it. For example, if an athlete feels as if a play was uncalled for, he can “tweet” about it and this will reach his followers instantly and spark conversation about the game. Fan’s look up to professional athletes and if they evoke a feeling or a belief through their twitter accounts it is only expected that it will eventually lead fans to think the same or question the realities of the situation. These instances can provoke fan reactions and this how we now that nationalism is working. That due to many fans tweeting back to athletes and describing their sense of pride for their teams and becoming invested in them, it is now a loyalty. This loyalty in turn effects the basketball culture because it provides players with instant feedback and creates a powerful dynamic in which fans are not just happy to be attending a game they are a part of the team.

A significant event that I want to further analyze the idea of a relationship with athletes and fans is through the reactions of the media and the actual occurrence of the event that is know as the “Malice at the Palace.” This event occurred in 2004 during a Detroit Pistons and Indiana Pacers game in Michigan. It started when the then Pacers player, Ron Artest, shoved a Pistons player Ben Wallace after a foul. The fight was subsided between the two players but eventually escalated again due to Artest being hit by a drink that was thrown from the stands. Artest enthralled with anger attacked the Pistons fans, which led to other teammates and fans to do to the same and created a huge brawl bash in the arena.

When I read about this event I noticed this concept of nationalism take place. This Pistons fan was so angered by the foul play that he took matters into his own hands and threw a drink at a professional player. He wanted to show his passion and investment with the team, and wanted to so badly be the “hero” that he ended up starting a war within the arena. Other than seeing nationalistic characteristics in this event, the relationship between fan and player and the overall framing of how this event took place within media also needs to be looked at. Knowing that basketball is predominant black sport and mostly having white spectatorship we need to further analyze how racial stereotypes and the view of the black player affect the culture within the sport.

In the case of Ron Artest, De B’béri and Hogarth further explore how the commodification of black bodies takes place within the sport during this time, in their paper “White America’s Construction Of Black Bodies.” They go on to talk about how there is a prominent white spectatorship in the sport, and how this effected the way media had portrayed the event. It’s important to recognize these racial dynamics in sports because then you can easily interpret the athlete and consumer relationship. It’s also important to recognize the ideologies that surround the sport, like how many people assume that black people only know how to play the sport and white men understand the concepts of the sports better. When talking about ideologies, it is a dominant way of thinking within a culture; they are a unification of different concepts and rules that have been created.

For example, when talking about the Ron Artest incident we can further see that ideologies are present when looking at the media coverage that took place after the event. When seeing even minor implications that something might be racist these implications further the concept that whatever the author is writing is due to the ideology they have been in contact with (De B’béri). The Ron Artest incident brought forth many of the ideologies of racism that were at first trying to be hidden. Sports culture is always trying to prevail that it is an equal field, but the media is always reporting “rags-to-riches stories of disadvantaged black players gaining incredible wealth through athletic achievement” (De B’béri). The problem with this reaching to consumers is that it allows people to ignore the rooted racial issues. White spectators are making it seem as if black men are given a privilege to be able to play basketball, which is not the case.

Black male athletes are seen to be “gifted” due to their body physic, and that because of the biological tendency they can prevail. Although black male athletes are viewed as men that have masculine power, this isn’t the case. These views of the “gifted” body have originated from representation of black masculinity and have been built because of the fascination the white spectators have had on them since slavery. This is also the concept of the commodification of black bodies, the concept that the white spectator is only using their bodies and not their mental abilities. The white gaze has put forth into media that the black body is of heroic characteristics and they perform superiorly during athletic performance. The white gaze being the way media portrays the other race, it is in relation to white power.

For example, as reported in the De B’béri article, an article by Prickering conveys how Ron Artest was given the opportunity to be rich and happy, and all he needed to do was play the game and keep his anger issues to himself. This statement further implicates how black athletes are seen to be given millions of dollars just to play the game and that they should be grateful for the sport allowing them to earn a living (De B’béri). This supports how media is portraying the black male athletes for their physical abilities and they should appreciate what they are doing. This view of thinking is developed from the white gaze, emphasizes a dominance on the black athletes.

Thus, the black male athlete becomes seen through the myths from the past African American male representation, and from the present media coverage and is denied of creating their own identity, which is soon found through their own means of media production (De B’béri). After analyzing my experience as a consumer and the effects that media has on the overall culture of basketball, I came to the conclusion that because the ideologies that surround basketball are exploited to be a black male sport and white men are the spectators, in turn create the power dynamics that embody they sports culture.

Works Cited

De B’béri, Boulou Ebanda, and Peter Hogarth. “White America’s Construction Of Black Bodies: The Case Of Ron Artest As A Model Of Covert Racial Ideology In The NBA’s Discourse.” Journal Of International & Intercultural Communication 2.2 (2009): 89-106. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 17 Mar. 2014.

Hutchins, Brett. “The Acceleration Of Media Sport Culture.” Information, Communication & Society 14.2 (2011): 237-257. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 18 Mar. 2014.

Wakefield, Cooper S. “Nike’s Shanghai Advertising Dialectic: A Case Study.” China Media Research 6.1 (2010): 68-85. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 18 Mar. 2014.

Mountain Biking as Sport

Sports have all had to start somewhere. Baseball started with just makeshift equipment. There was no real league and no real equipment being manufactured for the sport. Now it is a full-fledged sport with rules, professional players, and equipment made on a mass production level.  This type of timeline is not uncommon when sports start to evolve. This is the timeline that downhill mountain biking has followed. The timeline for downhill mountain bikes has gone through many stages at a decently fast pace. The bikes have undergone an evolution that has changed the way biking is seen. The bike has expanded from an object that provides transportation to one that provides a living for some.

 

The first bikes that were invented were around 100 pounds. They were made to transport people from one destination to another. There was no consideration of speed or if the bicycles were going to go off the created tracks. According to Frederick Savre in his article “From Marin County’s Seventies Clunker to the Durango World Championship 1990: A History of Mountain Biking in the USA”, the reason why people rode bicycles “off-road” is “due to the absence of paved roads.”  In other words, the sport of mountain biking was created out of necessity, not for the fun of it. They needed to go off-road. To make going off-road as safe – and let’s face it, as fun – as they could, the individuals who needed to go off-road started to make adjustments to their bikes.

As explained by Dr. Sarah McCullough in her final dissertation, “Mechanical Intuitions: The Origins and Growth of Mountain Biking,” clunkers, the name for these off-road bikes before the term downhill mountain bikes, “were made from Schwinn cruiser bicycles circa 1930-1960, though the older frames were much preferred since they featured more durable, stronger steel.” These clunkers were made from spare parts from backyards, the frames that Dr. McCullough talks about, and materials that are able to fit the bike. These bikes were called clunkers. Dr. McCullough says, “These early machines deserved the ontomontapoenic reference. Their heavy frames and components ‘clunked’ along the trail with much rattling and jostling.” These bikes were the future of the sport of downhill mountain biking.

Today’s bikes are much different. The first bike made purposefully for downhill mountain biking was made by Joe Breeze. Dr. McCullough recounts the entire story of how the bike came into being. She also states that “the ability of the bicycle to become more than just a bike, to become a responsive part of the body, is what made it worth reproducing.” In other words, having a bike that worked with you, helped you gain faster speed, and could handle the terrain was something that others were interested in having. Today’s bikes model after this first mountain bike and that first mountain bike was modeled after the clunkers. The evolution continues.

Today, the sport of downhill mountain biking has been included in the Olympic Games. Within a mere decade, the sport had grown popular enough to have two world championships and to be included in the Olympics. To be included in the sport, Frederick Savre’s article “An Odyssey Fulfilled: The Entry of Mountain Biking into the Olympic Games,” states that “each sport that was put forward for inclusion in the Olympic programme had to fulfil the conditions of being practised on 4 continents and in 75 countries for men’s events, and 3 continents and 40 countries for women’s.” These were the conditions that needed to be met for the 1990 Olympic Games. Savre goes on to tell more about the event. He mentions that “on the 30th of July 1996, 40,000 people filled the mountain biking venue to capacity to watch the men’s and women’s events.” The debut of this sport in the Olympic Games and they are able to fill the venue to capacity. This is significant because the sport that was replaced with mountain biking was a sport where all of the competitors were male. Under the guidelines mentioned in the newly approved Title IX Act, all sports being introduced into the Olympics must have a men and women’s competition. That meant that mountain biking had male and female competitors. Although mountain biking ranked next to last in terms of total ticket sales, according to Savre, “in the eyes of the IOC (International Olympic Committee), it had reached its objective with the newly revamped cycling events and inclusion of mountain biking, regarded as a young and universal sport that was practised by both sexes.” (Parenthesis added)

The new mountain bike is viewed in a different light than the first one. According to gtbicycles.com, their 2014 Force Carbon Pro is made when you “Combine 150mm of premium suspension travel on both the front and the rear and aggressive geometry you have a bike that is very capable on a super wide range of trails.” Not only are these bikes not 100 pounds each, they are also supporting full suspension on the front and rear part of the bike. This is a long way from grabbing an old bike, throwing some random parts on and hoping that it will make it down to the bottom of the mountain in one piece. These are not the same bikes that needed the brakes repacked every time a race or a fun ride was completed.

Mountain biking is still a relatively new sport. It has only been around for about 34 years. In the short time since its inception, more than half of the bike sales have been mountain bikes. Indeed, I recently became one of those individuals who bought a mountain bike. I went my local bike shop thinking that it was going to be a one day, few hour trip, only to find out that it was a multi-day, several long hour decision. I went into that bike shop thinking that I could just hop on any bike and take off down very steep, treacherous mountains and be perfectly fine.

If you are like me and you are buying your first mountain bike but you don’t have someone who knows what they are doing, find someone! You don’t realize how important brakes, handlebars, seats, suspension, and the overall frame and build of the bike are. All of these different parts of the bike are intricate and can be personalize for each individual rider. Take the time to make the bike yours. Take the time to learn more about what you are putting your life into.

The evolution of the bike has not only been to increase the fun and the speed of the experience, but also make the experience safer for those who are involved. The first use for a bicycle was transportation. Now the use is a means of living for those who are professional downhill mountain racers. Those who practice on and off the trails built into the side of a mountain. I have only been on the bike for a while and already I’ve been thrown head first from it, like an angry bull bucking you off.

I am excited to see some of the general stereotypes that have been introduced into this sport are being challenged and mostly disproven. Mostly I am excited that there are many women who are faster and better than men are at this sport. It is important to realize these stereotypes are not the correct way to think about the different genders in this sport because when it comes to riding, no matter what gender, race, age, or class you are, if you aren’t thinking fast enough and aren’t able to react fast enough to those thoughts, then you will most likely end up with your face or bottom on the ground. Mountain biking is a great example of a sport that doesn’t care what gender you are. It is a sport where the best of the best will be the first ones down the mountain. Mountain bikes have really come a long way and I can’t wait to see where it heads next.

Surfing’s Laws

“We are a very territorial people, and even when surfing overseas we try to rule the break. We take the waves that are ours, and we take other surfers’ waves too.” Although some may describe surfing as a, “zen-like” sport, surfers can get very possessive over their local surf spots. This is primarily due to a set of reasons that include, but are not limited to, the following: beginner surfer’s may have never learned correct surfing etiquette; this may cause spatial dispute between amateur and newbie surfers, shortboarders tend to discriminate against longboarders due to technique differences and advantages over board control, and lastly, to the surprise of some, many professional surfers are banned from surfing local waves because they tend to draw in unwanted media exposure. In all my years of surfing waves up and down the coast of Southern California and abroad, I have experienced this aggressive behavior in the lineup, and noticed trends that have proved evident in a variety of surfing environments.

Like anything else in our society, there are rules we must follow in order to maintain structure, be socially accepted, or to simply stay out of trouble. Like most other sports, surfing requires a special framework that needs to be learned before a surfer paddles out on his/her own without the supervision of an instructor. We call this surf etiquette.  Surf etiquette essentially defines the rules of the lineup. The perfect comparison would be traffic light rules, and who has the right of way.  These are conventionally standard rules that all licensed drivers are aware of.  These same kinds of structures apply for surfing.  I have witnessed many disputes between beginners and amateur surfers in the lineup.  Most of the time, beginner surfers will just drop in on someone else’s wave without the slightest understanding of who has the right of way. This is a common occurrence at beginner surf spots (small, gentle, easy-to-catch, waves). A good example of this would be San Onofre State Beach near the nuclear power plant in San Diego.  In reality, these beginner surfers should have been excused from their mistakes in the water because it simply wasn’t their fault; whoever taught them how to surf should have made sure they learned these rules. Nevertheless, no matter what level type of wave these beginner surfers are surfing, there will almost always be a surfer higher in the lineup’s hierarchal peking order. This “better surfer” always has priority over other surfers on the water because he/she knows the rules and is always in the right position, at the right time. This surfer likely holds power over everyone else in the lineup, and depending on his/her attitude, can make or break the energy out on the water. A surfer with a poor attitude generally results in aggressive, at times hostile, behavior toward other surfers.

Personally, I think this behavior is ridiculous because every surfer started his or her surfing career as a beginner, and beginner surfers need to start somewhere, which is surfing a beginner wave.  My point is that regardless of the location, there is usually a surfer out on the water who chooses to behave aggressively just because he/she is better. According to Cassie Comley in her article, “Fall In Line,” “Surfers act this way because waves are limited resources and are the cause of this aggression. “ In other words, surfers can be seen as selfish in the water and just want more for themselves, without thinking about other surfers around them. Almost every spot has one of these surfers who surfs the spot regularly, so he/she assumes power over it, taking charge over something that doesn’t belong to him/her.

Working for the UCSD recreation surf class department I have frequently seen this kind of behavior.  Just last week we had an older man who claiming that our student surfers were constantly getting in his way. After listening to his complaints, we simply apologized and went about our business. Thereafter, he tried to shut down the whole surf school making claims that our department didn’t have a permit to work on that property. He lost. Northside Scripps Pier is a beginner wave; these people should expect to see beginner surfers in all their incoordination and uncertainty atop their brightly colored, softboards and be okay with it, but they at times are simply unwilling to cooperate.

In some cases, especially world-class surf spots, advanced level shortboarders tend to show discrimination over longboarders because of their advantages. As a former longboarder I have experienced this distinctive line between to the two types of equipment. This is mainly because longboarders can catch more waves in a shorter amount of time giving them the ultimate advantage, which leads to an uneven playing field out in the lineup. I have seen this happen at well-known surf spots such as Trestles in San Clemente, Orange County. This is a world-class wave that tends to break in perfect peak, in which a surfer can choose to ride the wave in a right or left direction.  According to the Kooks Guide to Surfing any surfer that has the inside (closest to the steepest part of the wave) has the right of way. Longboarders ride boards that are much bigger and buoyant; therefore, they can paddle around the shortboarder much quicker, leaving him in the wave’s position that immediately loses the right of way. Clearly, this is unethical in the framework of surfing and has its own term in the surfer’s lingo: backpaddling. I’ve seen surfer’s backpaddle each other many times in the lineup and have been subject to it myself. Depending on the longboarder’s character, he could continuously repeat this cycle until he becomes a wave hog and creates a dispute with the shortboarder. If he persists, a fight could emerge, or some other form of violence. In fact, backpaddling has become so unethical in the lineup that it is considered a form of misconduct in competitive surfing. Anyone that does this in a contest would lose a large amount of points on their highest scoring wave of the heat. Essentially it is another form of snaking (dropping in on another surfer) someone’s wave.

According to research scholar, Paul Scott’s We Shall Fight on the Seas and Ocean, surfers tend to behave more dominantly at their home breaks. I read some of his articles that talked about some reasons as to why surfers get very territorial.  He talks about how it’s all about self-preservation, and how surfers create an identity for themselves in clans. Anyone that is not a part of these clans, usually people not from that area immediately becomes excluded. These groups exist not only in California, but also on a global level. Many pro surfers with sponsorships get paid to travel to world-class surf spots all over the world. Believe it nor not, pro surfers get excluded from surf spots too. The main reason for this is that fact they bring in media attention to these spots, especially if these areas have really good waves, and are uncrowded. Pro surfers will show up with their cameramen and start shooting. Local surfers hate this kind of thing because they end up taking all the waves, and to make it worse film their local surf spots. Once these surf videos become published tourists from imperialist nations such as the United States travel to these unexposed surf breaks. This destroys the sacredness of these waves. I’ve also personally experienced this kind of behavior on a micro level at a more “hidden” surf spot in Orange County. A surfer friend of mine was convinced that he actually owned this surf spot because he lived down the street from it.  This spot was on the property of a prestigious, private-residential community. He used every creative way to gain access whether it was kicking the gate open when no one was looking, or simply hopping it. One summer day the waves were fireing, with very few people out.  A famous pro surfer somehow got access along with his cameraman.  There ended up being an argument between that surfer and my friend. The pro surfer ended up being chased out that day. My main point is that it really didn’t matter how good that surfer was; it was more about whoever’s territory it was had dominance.

Don’t get me wrong; surfing is one of the most spiritual sports in terms of individuality, brotherhood, art, and lifestyle.  This is the standard viewpoint for a none-surfer, but in reality there are all kinds of spatial claims due to beginners vs. amateurs, longboarders vs. shortboarders, and the negations of professional surfers riding waves in territorial zones.  We talked about surfing etiquette and the rules of the game. The main issue is that surfing is really just a hierarchal law without official rules so that law is maintained through the elitist surfers, which can choose to show aggression. We talked about the advantages longboarders held over shortboarders, which created tensional discrimination in the lineup. Lastly, the protection of local breaks with the dominant surf practice of “localism” to keep outsiders and company-sponsored surfers away from taking all the waves.

 

Works Cited:

Chronologically ordered:

Warshaw, Matt. The History of Surfing.

Comley, Comley. Fall In Line.

Scott, Paul. We Shall Fight On the Seas.

Youtube