National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
NCAA Double-A Zone
The NCAA News
|
The NCAA News
With the treatment of female athletes dominating the news lately, NCAA staff member Jaye Pearlman submitted the following post on the Double-A Zone (www.doubleazone.com), the Association’s official blog:
Waking up yesterday morning with my cup of coffee and fresh dose of Robin and Company, my attention was drawn to headlines pertaining to a series of letters complaining about the TV coverage of college cheerleaders and professional female athletes. After exploring the content of the story more thoroughly, I became baffled by the relativity of it all.
The sender of the threatening letters is upset about the close-up, front-view angles that cheerleaders and female professional athletes are shot at. The letter reads, “We have asked nicely for them to respect us and all women, yet they refuse. They exploit innocent people, so we will, too. When they start respecting us, we will stop mailing these out.”
The perplexing part is that a second letter contradicts the point by stating that Ohio State cheerleaders receive more TV time because of their more modest, long-sleeved cheerleading outfits, and the author states “if they wore sleeveless outfits, they would not get any TV time. So, we are fed up with this constant exploitation.”
My immediate reaction is to shrug it off; the letter doesn’t make sense, so I shouldn’t waste any more time on it. But I am intrigued.
Here’s why. Instead of spending hours getting ready for prom in high school, like most of my classmates, I hit the field with my lacrosse stick for warm-up sprints. I spent the night before with my classmates getting my nails manicured and hearing them plan their schedule around hair appointments and spa treatments — some even taking a half day from school.
When I walked onto the game field on prom night, it made no difference what my hair or nails looked like, it only mattered that we were up 14-13 and that if we hadn’t practiced long and hard, we would have lost the game. Instead, we won.
I walked off the field with my friends with a new enthusiasm and confidence. We showered up in the locker room, put on our gowns, threw our hair back into a pony tail and caught the bus just before it left for prom — dates, gym bags and lacrosse sticks in tow. It was what Billie Jean King would refer to as “my first superwoman moment.”
If I hadn’t been an athlete on that day, I would have had my hair pulled back in some silly do, and I would have had a dress I spent hours picking out, only to find that every other girl had it on in every other color. I would have been someone else’s image of what a woman should be. Instead, I was myself. I was strong, I was confident, I was happy.
When Don Imus recently made his career blunder, although his language was clearly offensive, it wasn’t the terminology I found most disturbing. Instead, it was the clear disrespect he used to comment on anything about the Rutgers team besides the game itself or their athletic ability. Tell me the last time someone said anything about the way men’s basketball players look.
When Brandi Chastain pulled her shirt off during her superwoman moment at the Women’s World Cup, it made headlines. Why? Was it because it poignantly portrayed her emotional adrenaline at that moment as an athlete, or was it because it showed skin (female skin) and could be exploited?
When you are on the court, you are an athlete. You are not male, female, black or white — simply a competitor. To be portrayed as anything less, whether through a comment or camera angle, is simply exploitative.
Waking up yesterday morning with my cup of coffee and fresh dose of Robin and Company, my attention was drawn to headlines pertaining to a series of letters complaining about the TV coverage of college cheerleaders and professional female athletes. After exploring the content of the story more thoroughly, I became baffled by the relativity of it all.
The sender of the threatening letters is upset about the close-up, front-view angles that cheerleaders and female professional athletes are shot at. The letter reads, “We have asked nicely for them to respect us and all women, yet they refuse. They exploit innocent people, so we will, too. When they start respecting us, we will stop mailing these out.”
The perplexing part is that a second letter contradicts the point by stating that Ohio State cheerleaders receive more TV time because of their more modest, long-sleeved cheerleading outfits, and the author states “if they wore sleeveless outfits, they would not get any TV time. So, we are fed up with this constant exploitation.”
My immediate reaction is to shrug it off; the letter doesn’t make sense, so I shouldn’t waste any more time on it. But I am intrigued.
Here’s why. Instead of spending hours getting ready for prom in high school, like most of my classmates, I hit the field with my lacrosse stick for warm-up sprints. I spent the night before with my classmates getting my nails manicured and hearing them plan their schedule around hair appointments and spa treatments — some even taking a half day from school.
When I walked onto the game field on prom night, it made no difference what my hair or nails looked like, it only mattered that we were up 14-13 and that if we hadn’t practiced long and hard, we would have lost the game. Instead, we won.
I walked off the field with my friends with a new enthusiasm and confidence. We showered up in the locker room, put on our gowns, threw our hair back into a pony tail and caught the bus just before it left for prom — dates, gym bags and lacrosse sticks in tow. It was what Billie Jean King would refer to as “my first superwoman moment.”
If I hadn’t been an athlete on that day, I would have had my hair pulled back in some silly do, and I would have had a dress I spent hours picking out, only to find that every other girl had it on in every other color. I would have been someone else’s image of what a woman should be. Instead, I was myself. I was strong, I was confident, I was happy.
When Don Imus recently made his career blunder, although his language was clearly offensive, it wasn’t the terminology I found most disturbing. Instead, it was the clear disrespect he used to comment on anything about the Rutgers team besides the game itself or their athletic ability. Tell me the last time someone said anything about the way men’s basketball players look.
When Brandi Chastain pulled her shirt off during her superwoman moment at the Women’s World Cup, it made headlines. Why? Was it because it poignantly portrayed her emotional adrenaline at that moment as an athlete, or was it because it showed skin (female skin) and could be exploited?
When you are on the court, you are an athlete. You are not male, female, black or white — simply a competitor. To be portrayed as anything less, whether through a comment or camera angle, is simply exploitative.
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy