It's that time of year. Yes, the birds are starting to chirp and the crocuses are peeking their little colorful heads up through the dry, brittle grass. This, I am very excited about. But what has me even more excited at this exact moment is a different kind of spring fever--the college basketball kind. It's March Madness baby and I'm hooked.
Game after game, March Madness means watching hungry, passionate college basketball players give their absolute all to try to stay in the tournament. As if that weren't reason enough to be hooked, it seems like each and ever frickin' game manages to come down to some last minute shot or over time (or series of them). They're all heartbreaking and exhilirating at the same time. The worst is when I actually catch one of those sappy personal profiles on one of the players (like a player for Siena whose dad has MS but makes the eight hour trip to the games anyway). Then his subsequent loss can literally bring me tears.
Yeah, that's right--his. I haven't seen one women's NCAA game.
What is our responsibility as feminist consumers when it comes to women's sports? Am I an asshole for getting so excited about men's March Madness but not making an effort to watch women's games? The path of least resistance is obviously just watching the dudes' games--after all they are publicized, televised, discussed, bet on, and celebrated. But have I just been jumping on the band wagon? Can I get as excited about watching women's basketball without all the ancillary hype?
Thinking out loud here, but would obviously love your thoughts sporty gals...
Oh, and for an incredibly offensive p.o.v. on the subject, check out 670, a Chicago-based radio station. Thanks to reader Matt for the heads up.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Women and (March) Madness .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12653
"Am I an asshole for getting so excited about men's March Madness but not making an effort to watch women's games?"
Yes
No. No more than I'm an asshole for never bothering to watch Men's gymnastics during the Summer Olympics, but watching the Women's finals. Some sporting events are better than others. You're not an asshole for watching the World Series instead of a Single-A team like the Camden Riversharks.
Sports are entertainment, and people watch what they like to watch. Would she be an asshole if she didn't watch basketball at all, but rather the NHL?
There's nothing wrong with having favorite sports, leagues, and sporting events.
women's basketball, objectively speaking, isn't as interesting as men's basketball. women's basketball players are, on average, shorter. the game is played at a slower pace, resulting in scores that aren't as high. it's well-known that only a few women in college or pro can dunk, while most 6'0 guards and above can dunk in men's basketball. there is, generally, more athleticism and more plays that inspire "oohs and ahhs" in the mens game.
SOMETIMES, a truly great rivalry can make up for this (like dook-unc, carmichael auditorium always ROCKS for these womens games and they sell out weeks in advance), or if you're watching two titans of a sport like tennessee and uconn going at it, that always has its perks (in the same way i hate nascar, but ill watch the daytona 500, because you know, it's like their super bowl, so everyone brings their A-game, and watching the "best" of any sport, even if you don't necessarily like it, can still be fun because the level of competition is so amped).
the women's final four will be interesting to watch for the reasons above, but there's also NO parity in women's basketball. the top teams are ridiculously good, but teams from the mid major conferences (and even the middle of the pack teams from the big conferences) are miles behind them. uconn going undefeated is legendary, for sure, but it's not necessarily interesting to watch when there's no real competition. the fewest amount of points they've lost by all season is 10 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/teams/schedule?teamId=41) and it's unlikely they'll play a close game until the final four, if at all.
"women's basketball, objectively speaking, isn't as interesting as men's basketball." I think the issue here is that this isn't an objective statement at all. In fact, one could easily argue that the very best team play in basketball occurs in the women's game because it takes a team to win a game, not a superstar who can dunk basketballs. The oohs and aahs are subjective, mainly pushed by 3 seconds clips that are easily viewed on Sports Center. To show women's ball, you have to be willing to watch the 20-second set up.
It seems like women's sports are in a catch-22 these days. They are hard to find on TV most of the time and therefore are not followed by many people. And because there aren't a ton of people following them, there's no demand to see them on TV.
Good points and I dare say Candice Parker is the most charismatic and complete player to come out of the college ranks, male or female, in years.
"objectively speaking, isn't as interesting"
That's weird. I learned in 3rd grade that words like "interesting" are OPINION words, and words like "objective" are FACT words. Ms. Mills lied to me!
Sorry, I meant to say, "objectively speaking, that's weird."
I think what makes games interesting is the level of excitement of the fans. If somehow you were magically transported to a world where women's sports were, objectively, considered more exciting than men's and you were in the crowd with everyone cheering, and then you went to a men's game and no one was there, I bet you'd say the women's game was more exciting, umm, objectively.
And DOOK SUCKS!
As much as I don't want to agree with David Hodges, I must. Because women aren't as good as men at basketball. If they were equal, they would play together. But they are not. So women play in a separate league. One feminist issue I don't think is really an issue is women playing sports. Women are not as good at sports. I don't see why we have to push this.
Thats just not true. Women's and men's sports are different. Women's basketball has a much greater emphasis on fundamentals and the rules of the actual game and the team. Men's basketball is more about showy feats of athleticism from individual athletes. If you flipped it and said that what matters in sports and the measure of an athlete's talent is the purity of the game, well then men would be considered pretty terrible at basketball and women would be considered better at the sport. And finally, fuck UConn. They aren't as dominant as everyone would like to think they are. Scarlet Knights represent.
that's a silly stereotype about men's sports. because men happen to be more athletic doesn't mean men's sports are focused on that and ignore the rules and so called fundamentals.
I've heard this argument, but I find it completely absurd. Let's take the comment away from men's vs. women's basketball and look at (American) football.
The SEC is known as the more fundamental-driven league while the PAC-10 (basically USC) is known for more big-yardage offensive plays. Some people love to watch West Coast games, but others adore SEC-style play. As one of those SEC fans, I love it precisely *because* it's a purer form of the sport. The fundamentals are more intact, and the teams rely not on single bullets down the field but intense matches on both sides of the ball. Obviously millions of other fans share my enthusiasm; the SEC is the most-watched conference.
Yet I find men's basketball games more exciting to attend than women's games. (I don't watch either much on TV.) I can't explain why, but the slow pace often is what I've thought about when I've considered it.
If you look at individual players, consider the arguments from fans of Allen Iverson and Kobe Bryant early in their careers (and now arguably about Kobe and LeBron James). Kobe is a master of fundamentals, but he has plenty of people who believe he's the best current player. AI and LeBron aren't so much into fundamentals, but there are still people who enjoy watching them for the plays they make.
That's the really long way of saying that I think the fundamentals argument is bunk because it just doesn't hold up for me when you take a broader view of sports.
False! The most interesting game I ever watched was a tiny private college game (NCAA Division III), first national finals. The score was back and forth all night, never more than 10 points spread, tied at the bell and won (by the home team) by a three pointer already in the air. It was most certainly interesting.
One of the starting guards on the winning team was 5'5". But they were /skilled/ and they were /competing/. It was great fun to watch, and I wouldn't have called it 'slow'.
David Hodges, objectively speaking, is a male chauvinist who makes lots of sexist generalizations and dresses them up in the language of pseudoscientific bullshit.
I am not a basketball fan but I'm a baseball fan. I watch women's softball whenever I can but that still doesn't equal how much MLB I watch. And that is largely to do with the absence of a professional softball league.
Also, young girls are expected to play softball, field hockey and soccer growing up. But there are a lot of sports that are generally not seen as for girls. Basketball falls into that category, I think, but most of my experience is with ice hockey.
I think I do prefer watching men's hockey to women's but that is largely due to skill level. Men have been playing the sport since the late 1800s! More and more women are playing now, though. Hopefully that means the pool for talent will get deeper and deeper and the play will get more and more competitive.
In the meantime, you can bet I'll support girls youth hockey!
L Boogie,
There is a professional women's fastpitch league in the states. It's a small league with a short season, so it's easy to miss, but it is high quality play. I'm extremely lucky to have two teams within easy driving distance, so I've seen a lot of games. I prefer them to men's baseball. I've seen Kat Osterman pitch against Jenny Fitch in this league. If you ever have a chance to see them play and like softball, I recommend it.
Side note to L Boogie, did you know that field hockey is a male-dominated sport outside the US? Check it out in the summer olympics sometime. Both men's and women's are really fun to watch - and the last I saw, the men wear kilts!
I do watch the women's tournament, mostly because women's basketball is one of the few sports my undergraduate alma mater, Vanderbilt, is any good at. In fact, the Vandy women are the only team I root for (the other two are Texas and Georgia Tech) that is still playing this season, men or women.
How could you not love the drama of this year's women's tournament, though? UConn goes in undefeated again and is utterly demolishing everyone who dares to step on the court with them, Courtney Paris of Oklahoma says she'll pay back her scholarship if the Sooners don't win it all, there are under-bracket teams hosting sub-regionals (and beating #1 and #2 seeds), and there are the same cinderellas and almost-cinderellas that the men's tournament features. I don't give a shit about either Pitt or Gonzaga, but I was riveted to that game yesterday, and it featured one of the best defensive plays I've ever seen in any basketball game regardless of gender or level of competition.
I'm of the opinion that in terms of competitiveness and parity, women's college basketball is right around where men's basketball was back in the late '60s and early '70s. There are a small handful of teams that dominate the landscape (UConn : UCLA :: women now : men then), and everyone else is scrambling just to maintain respectability. Obviously, women's basketball isn't as popular or profitable as women's basketball. Our society has a long way to go before that changes. But a not-insignificant part of the solution, I think, is just patience. Women's basketball has been an NCAA-sanctioned sport for less than 30 years.
I was just thinking about this the other day, when I admitted to my husband that I just don't get as excited about women's basketball. I'm excited for y local teams (Stanford and Cal) and will watch their games, now that they're both in the Final 16. But as one commenter pointed out, it's just a different game. It is. Men's bball is funner to watch, and it doesn't make me a shitty feminist to think so.
On the flip side, I LOVE watching women's soccer (rougher, dirtier, more intense, imho) but get bored watching most men's games ('cept the World Cup finals).
I have been waiting for months for the new women's professional soccer league in the US to start. I would watch Sweden's female pro teams if I could but they don't show them on t.v. For me, part of the excitement is seeing teams get better and more competitive from year to year, but I always love to root for the underdog.
The other part of it is that, honestly, seeing people like me doing things that I only wish I had the experience and talent to do is in some ways more exciting. I can't compare myself to a male hockey player or soccer player; not only am I not male, but there is a mysticism surrounding male athletes that makes me feel very separate from them. But with female athletes, I feel like I'm striving with them somehow. They may not have as much skill as the male players in comparable leagues but that's not really what I watch sports for in the first place.
Now if only they would show women's hockey other than just the Olympics...
I don't really care for basketball in general, so I don't watch women or men. But I do like to watch softball, and only softball, because I can't relate to male players. I think it's because I was a softball player, and when I see it on tv, I'm glued, but when it's baseball, I'm yawning. But the flipside of that is that I never know when softball is on, if it even is aired on the cable I get. I'm a consumer of sports, but I'm not gonna bend over backwards to figure out how to access the entertainment I want.
I'm glad to see this story!!! 'bout time. I love women's college sports and especially b-ball. My dad even watches UConn and Tennessee thats as intense as it gets. I love the fierceness (no Tyra-ism implied) of Maryland (they eat kids) and UConn is a juggernaut. Granted women's b-ball is a different than the men's game but it has it's own beauty to it. I love the symmetry and the flow. The angles and precision. C'mon even Bobby Knight marvels at it:)
I was wondering when March Madness would be addressed. Asshole for not watching the women? No. Contributing to the problem? Maybe.
I can't STAND when people say women don't play with as much athleticism as men and therefore aren't as fun to watch. Have you BEEN to a top tier women's basketball game? Women play with just as much heart, energy and enthusiasm as the men. (As for dunking, its still more common to watch a Div-I men's game in which no one dunks than one that turns into a dunk-a-thon).
I'd say, if you're interested, pick a team to follow from this point in the tourney, get to know some of the players (the way you would a men's team) and tune in. The lack of hype that surrounds you may not have you biting your nails (or winning money) the way you will with the men's tournament, but its still great fun to watch.
Yes yes yes. I completely agree.
Also, Courtney, the picture you chose says it all. I was at a UConn women's game the other night and even though they always completely blow everyone away ::smirk::, they're just so much fun to watch. I even have to give some love to Tennessee for Pat Summitt's incredible 1,000 wins. Though the rivalry is, of course, the best part.
In the end, this comment may have had very little point other than I'm crazy about women's basketball and wish it got more attention. Yeah.
Thank you. Women's b-ball is like women's tennis, it's different butit can be as or more interesting as the men's game. And these days most girls play pick up ball with guys anyway.
I love this advice! It takes some darned effort to get into and find women's sports. So, for those of you looking for women's games and/or those of you willing to take on Californienne's challenge: espn360.com streams all the women's games live and free for the whole tournament. I spent my entire Tuesday night basking in the glow of some exciting mothereffin' women's ball. Go Huskies.
punchbuggy green: you rock.
I hate the "objectively speaking" bs that gets bandied about in reference to women's sports. I hear all the time that women's soccer is slower and therefore not as exciting as men's soccer. But it really is a matter of opinion. I love women's soccer precisely because it takes a bit more time for plays to unfold, and because the focus is more on the way a team plays together than on how superstars perform. And even those judgments are subjective.
I do think feminists have a responsibility to support women's sports. The WPS is starting up on Saturday. I'm loving their advertisements featuring Aby Wambach and Shannon Boxx (even though, yes they are playing up individuals over teams)
http://fancorner.womensprosoccer.com/video/see-extraordinary-abby-wambach
I live in Australia, which doesn't have the depth of university sport as the US. But I have watched international women's soccer on TV quite a bit. Obviously the two aren't quite comparable, but still.
The thing that frustrates me about women's soccer is the amateurishness. It's not that women will never be as good or exciting as men: they are more flexible and can have better changes of pace, which makes for exciting football.
But the level is just so low. The women's quarter-final USA vs Japan, for example. The mistakes the Japanese keeper made were mistakes I would cringe at if I saw them in my local league.
And the possession football is appalling; it is much rarer to see five passes strung together in women's soccer than men's, and obviously it is possession which allows plays to develop. At least half of the goals I've seen in women's soccer have been due to quick breaks due to elementary defensive mistakes.
All of this is avoidable, and there is nothing natural about the inferiority of women'd football to men's, but it is still a much worse game to watch.
My opinion? Fuck sports. Men's and women's. I will not watch and lend my support to its culture of team jingoism and sanctioned hate. Not to mention rampant misogyny, as detailed in this and other posts. I don't think it's a coincidence that Super Bowl ads are some of the most disgusting out there.
Go out and *play* some sport... it's not the same as it looks on TV.
I have nothing against recreation, just Sports! Culture! Unfortunately, vanishingly few people can make that distinction.
Oh, ok. Fair enough then.
yeah, its way more awesome when jingoism is national.
And when the hell did I say that was good?
I think that regardless of which teams- men or women's- are more "exciting" to watch, it's really the principle of ignoring women who work just as hard for less recognition (and less money, when they turn pro) that is unfeminist. I think it would be decent of a feminist bball fan to catch the women's games and support these talented athletic women.
These girls can play but clearly they're still not getting the attention they deserve. Only a small percentage of people watch NCAA women's basketball and most of them are females. Speaking of basketball, who remembers John Salley? His sports talk show is pretty interesting. I heard him getting political on 99problems.org. haha It's good that more and more celebrities are starting to lend a helping hand.
the quality of the games matter tho. men in division II schools also work very hard, but their game lacks the appeal of the division I men, so they are ignored. the same applies to many women's sports because they are doing the same things the men are doing, just at a slower, less exciting pace
You know, I am also frustrated by the lack of attention on women's basketball, but I have to say that in the last few days I've been so pleasantly surprised.
There's a video of the MSU/Duke game of a couple days ago (http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=4013818&categoryid=2378529 [sorry for the noxious Axe commercial preceding]) that was SportsCenter's highlight of the night. MSU, a 9 seed, took down #1 Duke... and all the dramatic elements were there. MSU's former coach now heads Duke, so that led to a lot of tension. Lots of fans showed up to the Breslin Center in East Lansing. Men's basketball coach Tom Izzo and his guys were all there... and when MSU defeated Duke, everyone rushed the floor. My facebook feed from my Michigan friends (that's where I'm from) was flooded for about a day with excitement about the women's team.
It was just awesome to see this sort of enthusiasm, both from ESPN and from basketball fans in general. I think it goes to show that exciting sports are just exciting, no matter whether men or women are playing. While women's basketball gets an unfair amount of attention or television time, the celebration was there a few nights ago -- and I'm proud both as a Spartan fan and as a feminist. Hope we can see more.
MSU's women's team is tremendous, and, as somebody who had classes with a number of the players from the last few years, and as a feminist, it's been great to see that program grow and gain momentum as it has. Two years ago, the last time I attended MSU's Midnight Madness, the women got just as much cheering as the men did when they were introduced. I loved it.
The Duke game was wonderful (insert big raspberry aimed at McCallie here). My SO had to be on campus that night for a meeting. He said finding parking anywhere even remotely near Breslin was nearly impossible, worse even than Men's home games, and nearly as bad as early morning before football games (even before they let in tailgaters). I've heard rumor that they locked down the nearby dorms during it for security purposes, something they usually only do during football season as those dorms are in prime tailgating country.
Something else cool about MSU, they are sending the same size contingent of Spartan Brass (pep band) to both tournaments. Both teams are getting equal support of the athletic band program. Not bad when just a few years ago, men's games got the full Spartan Brass, women's just a third of the full Brass and had to compete with Hockey to even get a half size group recently.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/050901
i did a terrible job articulating why i dont like women's basketball as much as men's. i *personally* don't find womens basketball to be as interesting as mens. i have several, in my opinion, objective, empirical, quantitative reasons for this. they are listed above, but i will repeat: in a sport where height matters, the players are shorter. the game is played at a slower pace, as shown by fewer points scored per game as well as by a shot clock reduced to 30 seconds in an attempt to artificially speed the game up compared to mens where the shot clock is 35 seconds. the players are less athletic, as evidenced by fewer dunks, HOWEVER, this fact manifests itself in many less tangible ways throughout a game if you sit and watch (i went to every home womens game my senior year).
having said all this, i agree with bill simmons on why womens college basketball still works. the student-alumni-college connection. when you have a good team, a school will get behind that. it's a point of pride as well as school spirit. and while women may not be as entertaining as men, i have enormous respect for them as athletes playing at a high level. i used to play pickup games in woolen gym, and every once in a while some of the womens team's players or walk-on mens players would be there. ivory latta is as obscenely fast in real life as she is on tv and from the stands, and i'm not embarrassed to say she made a mockery of my defense on more than one occasion.
That's still not objective. I mean, who decides that greater speed and height automatically make a sport "better"?
I find all basketball boring, and I'm sure I could list some "objective" reasons for it, but ultimately it is still my opinion, not a fact and certainly not an objective fact at all.
That's still not objective. I mean, who decides that greater speed and height automatically make a sport "better"?
But the thing is, David WASN'T saying that men's basketball is better than women's basketball. He said he finds it more interesting, based on the reason he gave.
As many have already noted above, they are just two different games, ie. women's basketball is a bit different compared to men's basketball.
It just so happens that more people prefer to watch sport events that are fast-paced. This is why lawnballs is not as popular in the world as football (or what Americans know as soccer).
Even in "The Beautiful Game", football, fans often pfer to watch the more exciting, fast-paced teams. Take the Men's World Cup for instance. While the Catenaccios style of the Italians is formidable, many many fans of football prefer the "beautiful" flowing style of the Brazillians or even the more sublime technical skills of the Dutch or German teams. In the English Premier league there are always arguments from fans and managers alike regarding the style of play of their teams, with the fans wanting to see more positive, attacking football, but managers prefering to play ugly and boring since they think being pretty is useless if you can't grab those sought after 3 points for a win.
He was saying that men's basketball was better, actually, according to his opinion. But as Punchbuggy Green pointed out in her/his reply, David was using some fancy words that only muddle his argument.
It just so happens that more people prefer to watch sport events that are fast-paced. This is why lawnballs is not as popular in the world as football (or what Americans know as soccer).
I don't believe that anything "just...happens". Only lazy thinkers resort to such an argument, in my objective opinion. ;)
Personally, I find the most exciting games to be the ones with the greatest intensity. This might or might not be apparent in the speed of the game; I've watched some intense women's football/soccer games that were not very fast at all. It has nothing to do with height, and in fact my favorite players tend to be pretty short compared to everyone else (Fabregas and Walcott on Arsenal, for instance).
(In fact, I often found being short to be an advantage for me when I would play certain sports because it meant I could duck and dodge a lot better and faster; I can't even count how many times I've played sports with boys who absolutely could not figure out how to stop me because the strategies they knew all involved restraining a tall, heavy, strong opponent rather than a short, light, agile one.)
considering greater speed is something players and coaches strive for, it is objectively a good thing. thats why femals bball teams play against male teams in practice: to improve on those things
The thing is, your post is a little annoying because the words "objective, empirical, [and] quantitative" aren't doing any work in your reasoning. It is like you added those words because you think they give more weight to your argument, except it isn't really an 'argument' because you are just giving your opinion.
I think my car is awesome because it is "objectively" red. I think I'm more mature than my sister because she's "quantitatively" younger than me.
And yet my opinions with regard to awesomeness and maturity don't become more valid just because I used some buzz words.
The "670" blog post was inane and obviously just a sad troll attempt.
Women's NCAA basketball doesn't get high ratings so we should just cancel it, right? Ok. Let's cancel men's college baseball as well. Not too much coverage of that! And men's college wrestling. Who the hell watches that! Or American men's professional soccer... even after Beckham came to L.A., I can't name a single one of their teams. I think there's seperate indoor and outdoor leagues... I could be wrong about that! Anyway since I don't care about soccer and the guys down at the local sports bar don't either, let's just get rid of it!
For what it's worth, there are countless men's professional leagues that would love to have the 7,931 average attendance that the author attributes to the WNBA. I may be wrong, but it doesn't seem like men's indoor soccer, outdoor soccer, rugby, tennis, etc approach 8k fans per every single game. So let's end their leagues too!
Bah.
(and FWIW, the only bad thing about women's NCAA is UConn always, always, always soaking up all the press.)
I feel like where I live it's been the opposite, until sort of recently. I'm from Knoxville, TN and the Lady Vols are a pretty good team and most people get really excited for the basketball season to see them play. In the past few years, however, the men's basketball team has become a lot better and has shifted a lot of attention away from the Lady Vols.
I think it's problematic to hold men's basketball as the standard and then define women's basketball by whether it is faster or slower and the players are taller or shorter. The NBA has been around longer so it's easy to consider it the standard, but it's not. Just as "men" are not the standard by which the rest of humanity should be defined. There are differences between men's and women's basketball, fine. But there's no hierarchy to those differences. Faster is not inherently more entertaining to everyone. Taller is not inherently more athletic. More dunking is not inherently better.
Faster is not inherently more entertaining to everyone but most people find faster games entertaining, hence why sports like archery and shooting are not as watched as sports like football (soccer), gymnastics or other more action-oriented sports in the Olympics.
In regards to dunking: dunking may not be required to win a game, but I've always seen it being said that in basketball, dunking is said to be the technique that has the highest success rate of scoring a basket (in comparison to other tecniques like three point throw, lay-up, etc). Therefore, a team that have more players that can dunk theoretically have an advantage.
And yes, taller is not INHERENTLY more athletic. In the NBA, aren't there some players that are like 5'8" to 5'10", who appear short compared to the other players, but can still dunk? This would mean that compared to the taller players, their vertical lift is better.
But we can definitely see that being taller confers advantages. You don't NEED an advantage to win, certainly, but is still an advantage.
In football (soccer), taller players have an advantage because if it came down to a header in an aerial assault, they will have the advantage in heading the ball in, compared to the shorter players.
In boxing, being taller allows a longer reach, which is definitely an advantage.
In some sports, being tall might be a disadvantage, but basketball is definitely not one of them.
You don't need to be tall to win. But it can help.
Football is fucking SLOW. Ever sat in the stands of a college football game that was televised? For every 60 seconds the game moves, there is a pause of 10 minutes
S/He was talking about soccer. :)
Oops!
Even for American football, though, I find this sentiment common among people who aren't really fans of the game or who don't understand all of it. The time between plays actually isn't very long.
For American football, I was talking about college games that are televised. Since they air the games live, they pause the game for commercial breaks. Those breaks make the game longer.
Regardless, it is still a slow game compared to soccer or basketball.
I'm of two minds here: on the one hand, I love men's basketball. I've been filling out brackets and following the tournament since the second grade, and because of my tight affiliations with a school with a terrific men's basketball program (Nova, where I now attend) it's a sport that's been a part of my life since as long as sports were part of my life. So in that sense, and I think it's this way for a lot of people, nothing can compare to the men's tournament in terms of investment of time and emotion, which may be the underlying reason why it's so much more popular.
On the other hand, there is a qualitative difference between women's and men's college basketball. Taller is not inherently more athletic, nor does dunking in and of itself connote skill, but appreciation of sports has an apex to which people aspire to watch/perform. In that sense men's basketball does have the better performers, and not by a little bit. I can give all the effort I want, work out every day, hustle, and I do not expect people to appreciate watching me play basketball as much as a DI men's team. It's just not going to happen.
I'm sure some people appreciate women's basketball more than men's basketball, and they have perfectly good reasons to do so. I know coaches who swear the dunk has ruined the game, or people who like seeing less iso/post based offenses. However, the substantial majority of sports fans do aspire to see the highest level of athleticism, skill, and performance possible, and that's in the men's tournament.
This does not devalue the women's tournament, and I think an active promotion of the sport of basketball has helped players of every gender. Candace Parker grew up watching MJ, and that doesn't hurt any of us, it only makes Candace Parker a better player.
Men aren't the standard to which humanity is defined, Sidewriter. The women's 1A tourney is more popular than men's HS basketball, as it should be, because it's played at a higher skill level and with more athleticism. There are hierarchies of skills, and some basketball skills are represented better in men's leagues. Leaping ability, height, the ability to dunk, these are not inherently male, they're just better represented in the men's tournament.
The parity issue is a whole other thing entirely in women's NCAA hoops, but I think as time passes we're going to see more balance as the sport becomes more popular among women.
To tie together the thoughts above—those perhaps not those of LOOOOONGCAT—here's an interesting survey I remember from 1999 at the height of the American women's soccer team power and media attention.
"Which do you think is more exciting to watch: men's soccer or women's soccer?"
Women's 40%
Men's 14%
[answers were the same regardless of the gender of the responder]
You wouldn't see those results in any other country and perhaps not at any other time. I watch men's basketball almost exclusively as well, but we shouldn't pretend our preferences don't have a lot to do with our culture and our media.
Simon
I think thats a good point, "exciting" depends on the context and in certain cases womens sports are more "exciting" than men are. Tennis and soccer are good examples (because the USA men are horrible compared to the rest of the world in soccer, whereas the women tend to dominate).
However, the real test is who is BETTER, and its clear that the men are better than the women in soccer. Line them up against each other and the men win at least 90% of the time.
By that standard no one would watch college sports when they could watch pros.
The "standard" by which games/sports are judged is winning. It has nothing to do with style. If the relatively slower style of women's basketball resulted in women beating men the majority of hte time, then the standard would shift to womens basketball as the "supreme" level of sport.
But the facts of the matter are these. Athleticism has a large part in determining victory for most sports (exceptions: sports that dont require strength/speed, such as bowling or race car driving), and male athletes due to higher muscle mass and more dense fast twitch muscle fibers, are able to create more velocity and acceleration on average than women, and this gives them a competitive advantage. This competitive advantage therefore determines who is the "standard" for sports.
Men are stronger and faster than women on a genetic basis. A woman will never be as strong as the winner of the Worlds Strongest Man competition, even if she starts training from age 2 and has the best coaches in the world to back her up. Its just not in her genetics.
Woah, watch what you say about race car driving not being physical... Because I can assure you, it is. Comparing race car driving with standard driving is like comparing being able to run with being able to run a marathon.
"The "standard" by which games/sports are judged is winning. "
We are not talking about what team wins what. We are talking about what individual viewers ENJOY watching and find EXCITING.
The words ENJOY & EXCITING indicate that we are discussing opinions.
I watch women's NCAA division I games on ESPN.
As an androgyne, I would personally like to see a world without "gendered" sports teams.
This may seem like a controversial idea, but we have already established that separate cannot be equal, and I don't see why this shouldn't apply to sports.
In sports, people often cite size/fitness differences as justification for gender-divided sports teams, but the police and armed forces also have similar fitness requirements and were already able to incorporate both genders into the same roles with minimal effort.
I absolutely agree. When it comes to the military, police forces, sports and really any other job, what matters is the standard.
If you need people in your military to have a certain level of intelligence, speed, and strength then the people you select and the level to which you train them and how you train them should have no basis on gender. I personally want all our military personnel held to the same, preferably high, standard. In this case the standard is objective and quantifiable. You have to be able to run a certain number of laps and have a certain IQ (or something like this, I'm not really familiar with what the U.S. military's standards actually are though I've heard they've gone way down).
The same goes for sports teams. If scouts for basketball teams went looking for skilled players among men and women they'd have a much wider field to select from and may find that the best male player in one instance or in one particular skill (like shooting or whatever) may not be as good as the best female player.
The point is to build the best team you can. That shouldn't be based on gender any more than it should be based on race or ethnicity.
It should come down to skill and experience and, depending on the job or sport, the ability to work as a team.
And finally, if women don't generally have the same skills as men in certain areas, that's because our society has set up a paradigm in which men are expected to be "better", more skilled, more athletic, more physical in general. Because of this, girls and women are not usually encouraged to pursue the same goals and focus their time and energy on the same pursuits as boys.
If we degenderize sports and allow men and women to play and compete together then everyone will get better, our sports leagues will flourish.
I'm not saying there is no biological or physiological difference between the sexes. I'm saying that there is simply more in common among us than different and if our culture and society were prepared to allow everyone equal opportunity (as we claim to) then the differences would be far less pronounced.
separate is NOT equal.
And finally, if women don't generally have the same skills as men in certain areas, that's because our society has set up a paradigm in which men are expected to be "better", more skilled, more athletic, more physical in general. Because of this, girls and women are not usually encouraged to pursue the same goals and focus their time and energy on the same pursuits as boys.
At most levels of society, I'd agree with you, but when we're talking about elite athletes such as one might find in top-level college programs or the top professional leagues, I don't think that holds. I wouldn't argue that the reason WNBA players aren't as tall or as strong as NBA players is that the women are culturally expected not to be as tall or as strong, or because they've been told they shouldn't be stronger or faster--on the contrary, women who play high-level basketball work incredibly hard to ensure that they're as strong and fast as they can be. It's because the biology of the human body is such that males selected for athletic potential and trained to take the greatest advantage of that potential tend to be stronger, faster, etc. than their female counterparts similarly selected and trained.
In other words, I'd argue that in this situation, much as I expect many slings and arrows for saying this, separate is better--because if there was just one top-level basketball league for both men and women, I don't think there would be very many women playing in it, and the women who would get to play would be limited to those with certain skills. Maybe there would be a few women who would have a certain skill set that would be in demand, just as there are a few NBA players now who are really good outside-shooting point guards but are downright unable to play physical ball in the paint (Steve Kerr of the '90s Bulls comes to mind)--but by and large, I don't think we'd see any women playing center or power forward in a nongendered basketball league. Women with the skills to excel as a center or power forward in the WNBA don't have the requisite strength or height to play those very physical positions in the NBA against men who tend to have 6" height and 50+ pounds on them. It's a terrible thing to have to say, and I know I'm going to catch a lot of flak for it, but I think it's true. Having separate leagues for men and women--in which males and females can play the kind of game suited to elite peak-level athletes of their sex--ensures that male and female athletes of all differing skill sets and positions are given the chance to receive plaudits for their performance.
I would also say that there are other sports in which this might not be as true. Basketball is a sport that rewards traits that predominate in elite male athletes, like strength, height, long limbs, etc. All other things being equal, a taller basketball player is more desirable than a shorter one; a stronger basketball player is more desirable than a weaker one; a longer-limbed basketball player is more desirable than a shorter-limbed one. Perhaps a site for reflection could be questioning whether the sports we choose to support are the ones that reward the traits of physically-elite males over those of physically-elite females, or questioning how sports that reward maleness can be changed for gender equity. Certainly we need to question whether or not the NBA is too rewarding of the violent traits of maleness now--it's a much more physical, bruising game now than it was even fifteen years ago. Certainly there is a great deal of our sports culture that needs to be questioned and critiqued.
But I don't think the solution is to take a sport that as it is right now rewards the physical traits of elite males and simply open it up to elite females as well; such a solution, I think, would deny a great many elite women athletes their day in the sun.
I'd like to revise my last paragraph upon rereading as I don't think I expressed myself properly. Revisions are italicized.
"But I don't think the solution is to take a sport that as it is right now rewards the physical traits of elite males and simply open it up to elite females as well, combining men's and women's leagues into a single league; such a solution, I think, would deny a great many elite women athletes their day in the sun."
But most sports ARE like this. You just don't see women because they aren't as good.
In the NHL for example, there was a female goaltender who made it all the way to an NHL team as a backup (though she never actually played). I am sure there are examples in other sports.
I.e., when the women really are as good or better then the men - they will take them.
There are no rules in the NBA, NHL, MLB, NFL that say only men can play. Women can too. The teams are free to draft women if they like or sign them and play them. NOTHING prevents this. They just don't because so far no women has been able to achieve a high enough level of performance/skill to compete with the men on a consistent basis.
So in essence, the leagues ARE gender neutral.
Which is why it's important to have female-only leagues, else we might not have ANY women playing professionally in many sports.
Actually to followup, in some of the European professional hockey leagues there ARE a few women on some of the teams who can compete and do play alongside. (Or there is at least 2 that I know of, hopefully they are still playing there).
The european hockey leagues aren't as good as the NHL so the opportunities for women to play alongside the men are greater. I always wished I could watch those games, as it was always a dream of mine to make the NHL alongside the men.
Interminable, meaningless personal anecdotes and preferences aside, the continuation of women's collegiate sports isn't going to be dependent on TV ratings, but on the continuation and enforcement of Title IX.
Chiming in as someone who now Only watches the women's tournament--it's really frustrating that major networks don't carry the women's games. They're all on ESPN2, which means it's a lot tougher to follow the tournament if you don't have cable. And forget about the regular season games.
I'm also a little fed up with all the "Yawn, women's sports are slow" comments. I'd much rather watch a "slow" game with sound fundamentals and team play than a bunch of speedy individuals. When I was in college I always preferred watching the women's hockey team (which had several olympians on it, just by the by) over the men's because their passing was unbelievable.
I've often heard this said of womens basketball in comparison to mens. I know little to nothing about basketball. I looked up some statistics. Despite playing with a smaller ball, the shooting percentage is lower and the turnover rate is higher in womens basketball.
Is the claim that womens basketball is much more fundementally sound a reference to the defensive aspect, creating more turnovers and limiting scoring more effectively?
I love love love women's basketball. Of course, my sister has been playing since she was in elementary school, and she can rock it (she was ranked 4th in the nation for JuCo for 3 pt. shootinglast year) I mean... her team last year was so exciting to watch because they played together and they played with attitude.
When I watch men's games I see a lot more showboating and a lot less collaborative play (not to say this is always the case). I do enjoy watching some men's college ball, but I never have gotten into the NBA or the WNBA for that matter.
I really wish there were more women's bball games on tv. I do have cable, so I have been able to catch more this year, but still the ratio of women's games to men's games is disappointing.
I don't know if you read about the Ebony Experiment (http://www.womanist-musings.com/2009/03/ebony-experiment-is-it-racist.html), but I am reminded of this.
To answer your original question Courtney, no, I don't think you're an asshole for not watching women's basketball. We watch what we enjoy. There are some women's sports I thoroughly enjoy watching - women's gymnastics meets and soccer in particular. When I was at UGA, I made a conscious effort to go to the same number of men's and women's basketball games because I thought I should experience both. I just don't get into the women's games. Even when we were playing Tennessee (and at the time were competitive with them), it somehow didn't appeal to me in the same way that men's teams do. Now, that said, I'm not in Kentucky, and I will watch UK or Louisville because of the "home team" bias.
The only thing I make an effort to do is to expose my children to both women's and men's sports. I believe it's important for my daughter (my son, too, but for different reasons) to see women doing all types of things, including playing sports. So I do think it's important to go to games for both if we're going to make sporting events part of our family's life.
That is to say: I'm NOW in Kentucky.
We watch what we enjoy.
The key is figuring out how and why our particular tastes have developed. We could say the same about anything else: "I just enjoy spending time with other Whites"..."Some jokes (e.g., sexist) are just funnier than others"..."Action movies are just faster-paced than art-house films"...
Our tastes in sports do not develop in a vacuum, and are as culturally- and time-determined as anything else. Especially as feminists, we have a responsibility to be as self-critical about this as we would be about any other "personal preference."
I disagree. People make choices that are influenced by their culture but what they like or don't is a matter of personal preference, not cultural influence. Think of ice cream, the preference for one flavor over another has nothing to do with what the culture you grew up in (liking vanilla over choclate for example) however when you choose to purchase a flavor you hate over a flavor you really like because you fear the reaction people would have for eating the flavor you really like is an example of culture influencing choice.
Here is an example of culture influencing choice but not what one likes: closeted homosexuals, culture didn't make them gay, it just made them afraid to let anyone know.
You are awesome.
It has been interesting to read the comments here.
I have just two things to say:
1. Some people have way too much time on their hands and get very worked up about small stuff
2. GO LADY TERPS
If you think commenting on Feministing is a waste of time, then fuck off and stop commenting.
Sorry if the fact that others of us want to continue a conversation/debate bothers you. If you don't like conversations or debates, stay away from them. If you don't like conversation on blogs, stop reading blogs.
Boy Punchbuggy, you are angry, huh? Just fyi, I am making no general comment about blogs, online communities or any such thing. I am referring to messages just like your reply to me...chill, and enjoy the games!
What seems odd about this conversation to me is that March Madness is one time when women's sports actually do get some attention, and by some counts the women have been much more interesting to watch this time around, because the outcomes haven't been as predictable.
I love men's basketball and women's basketball. But they are different games. I watch the men's game for different reasons, and each give me different pleasures.
The men's game is more fast paced, and the women's more focused on fundamentals.
Also, let's not forget that basketball has changed greatly over the years to make it more exciting for the guys. There was an era when there was no shot clock, no 3-point line, and NO DUNKS. All of these changes have been made to allow the men's game to go in the direction it is now in. Much faster.
I went to the womens Terps game this week and the energy is good (not as good as Cameron Stadium, go Duke). I think it's catching on.
Still, it was sad to see the women's athletic dept. have to give away food and shirts at Duke to get more students to attend. My suggestion, be the change you want to see.
Good points. And there is nothing like actually being at a game. I wish more women would be supportive.
This is NOT to speak for sports fans in general, all female sports fans, or anyone other than ME, but I prefer men's sports because I get to watch the athletic action and I get to admire handsome men.
I am a straight woman and I am entitled to my turn-ons, right? Just as much as a man who likes women's beach volleyball. (Though I tend to bristle when I hear a guy express that. The more I realize that I appreciate some eye candy, too, the less I can rationalize being creeped out by guys who get turned on watching female athletes in little outfits. I just wish they'd bring back the 70's men's basketball shorts already!)
Thank you to the person who mentioned that the women's NCAA D I tournament games are available online. I just watched Baylor vs South Dakota and it was awesome. Lower scoring than lots of men's games, as someone noted above, but I'm inclined to think that could be due to the women playing great defense rather than the men being better point-scorers.
James Gilmore, thanks for a thoughtful response about men's and women's athletic abilities. I am personally glad that there are separate gender leagues in many sports. I'm fast for a woman (sub-5-minute mile) which gave me lots of great opportunities to compete in track in college. That time still puts me slower than most of the men on my college team, however, so if our competitions had been combined male/female, I would never have had the chance to succeed in the ways that I did (qualifying to the national meet, etc). My being faster than most women but slower than most men on my team is not just because the men had had the opportunity to be challenged against better competition or anything like that; it really is physiological. That said, I think James has a great point that we can have a valuable discussion about which sports our culture prioritizes and how that often coincides with the sports men physiologically tend to be better at. Also, it would be interesting to explore which sports are effectively gender-neutral or favor women.
I've created a women's basketball bracket (I am not involved with the much-publicized men's game). My bracket has taken a shellacking, to say the least. Only six of the teams I've predicted to make it into the ONLY Sweet 16 there is (the men's sixteen teams are called the Round of 16) made it. I still have three of my Final Four picks (Oklahoma, Stanford and undefeated Connecticut).
Oh and a little sidebar, UConn will NOT finish 39-0. They will lose in the national title game. Sorry to disappoint all of the UConn women's basketball fans.
I do not think that you have to watch the women exclusively to be a feminist. I think the point of being a feminist is to help things be more equal. I do not think you apply that to entertainment. Everybody is entertained in different ways. So you have to find what entertains you when you’re looking to entertain yourself. When you are looking to change the world, work on women’s issues. A wise man once said that you cannot combine work and play. I think that would be applied here.