Helen's soap box: "What is it with ESPN studio announcer's recent obsession with the word "Ladies"?"
Helen from the Women's Hoops Blog wrote the following today (click link above):
I'll get off my high friggin' overly sensitive to institutionalized sexism horse when the male announcers say, "We'll get to the gentlemen's game as soon as the double-overtime game between Virginia and North Carolina concludes."
And I won't hold my breath that ESPN's ombudsman will address the issue.
I agree.
But here's something that also always strikes me as problematic: when people call the athletes girls because -- by most definitions in our particular society -- they're not. I know it is sometimes used as a term of endearment, but it's still sort of odd. And broadcasters actually don't do that very often -- but many, many other people do.
In any event, we do have to work on how we label and talk about women athletes, especially in comparison to how we talk about the men.
almost 2 years ago
Nate Parham
11 comments
0 recs |
Comments
Boys and girls
Why don’t the talking heads call MCBB players boys? Because the players are overwhelmingly African American, so calling them boys is a sure trip to the unemployment line.
This is very, very true...
…but I don’t really hear them calling the women “girls” either…
I more often hear that from coaches/players… which is just something I’ve found odd…
SwishAppeal.com, women's basketball...covered SBN-style... twitter: @qmccall3
Women is such a hard word to say...
I’ve heard ‘girls’ more than I’ve heard ‘ladies’, and if I had to choose an offensive term, I’d take ladies- at least it’s a bit less infantilizing, even if they’re both insultingly patronizing.
I am the victim of a basketball jones.
Such a sad world we live in...
But yes, “girls” is infantilizing.
The way athletes have explained it to me is that it’s one of those we-can-call-ourselves-that-but-you-can’t… which just leads to a set of arbitrary boundaries that seems to do nobody any good…
SwishAppeal.com, women's basketball...covered SBN-style... twitter: @qmccall3
And dolls?
I say “girls” sometimes, and I don’t see it as you do. It’s an analog to “guys”, as there is no better term for that purpose.
I think “girls” is far less infantilizing than the common calling of players by first names. It happens with men sometimes (Kobe, LeBron, etc.) but far less often than with women.
Should have clarified
Might just be me, but using ‘girls’ implies more closeness, and commentators shouldn’t be close to a team- they’re supposed to be neutral, or at least professionally distant.
The first name thing… again, that’s a function of the intimacy of the fandom. (NOT LIKE THAT.) A surname is a set of stats in a boxscore; a given name is a flesh and blood person who sings along to the warm-up music. The person who hands me a streamer and dares me to go to the road game at Rutgers is “Joy”, not “McCorvey”. The person who steals my Sharpie is “Ashley!”, not “Battle”. But, again, that’s not a trap commentators should be falling into.
Alternatively, the first name thing may also be related to there being more ‘unusual’ given names on the women’s side than on the men’s, though that one doesn’t hold up with Tina Charles. And yet again, it’s not something commentators should be doing.
Anecdata: when I talk about the game, I refer to the players on “my” teams- the Liberty, St. John’s- by first name and players on opposing teams by surname. (Unless they happen to be Sidney Spencer, who is “Spencer” on a good day.) But I’m a fan. No one pays me to talk about the game. I’m under no professional obligation to be neutral, though I do at least try to observe both teams. If I were credentialed, or otherwise bound by a professional code of conduct, I would behave and write differently.
I am the victim of a basketball jones.
Interesting topic
In no particular order:
Not being a commentator, I usually say “girls” when talking about the Cal players because (1) they’re young enough to be my kids, and I feel vaguely maternal—in a nice, remote way—toward some of them, and (2) I don’t think of most 20-years-olds as men and women, and given some of the astoundingly self-centered and ignorant things they say and do, at least to their parents, I have no problem with my attitude. I don’t blame them; I acted pretty stupid when I was 20. It came as a real relief to find out that the brain isn’t fully developed until the mid-20s and that my daughter is normal. (Yeah, yeah, I know that many people over 25 are also self-centered and ignorant. They’re unfortunate, though, because they no longer have an excuse.)
The “Lady Bears” thing is silly. Some people seem to think it’s gallant. It’s not; it just reflects an attitude (probably unconscious and well-meaning, etc.) that males are the norm and females are Other.
I’ve always been intrigued by commentators’ choice of first or last name. Mr. Davis was “Baron” in local commentary, perhaps because he’s cute and seemed to be the Warriors’ savior for a while; he was Our Baron, and I think his first name was said with affection. But it’s true that people, as a very general rule, act more familiar with females, perhaps because they seem safer, less physically threatening, even when the female in question is 6’ 3" and ripped. (Supposedly the male practice players at Cal last year used to argue over whose turn it was to guard Devanei Hampton; absolutely none of them enjoyed the job.)
Great points, BearBint
And from that, I’d actually refer back to what Queenie said above:
“But I’m a fan. No one pays me to talk about the game. I’m under no professional obligation to be neutral, though I do at least try to observe both teams.”
I think that’s the big issue for me.
Baron is an interesting case too, because Baron is a rather unique name with a huge personality (obligatory link to his 2007 playoff dunk over the Jazz).
Speaking of the Jazz, part of the name issue is also who has unique names — I’m sure Jazz fans would call “Stockton” “John” but then you wouldn’t be able to distinguish him from the millions of other John’s… so that’s a sort of complex dynamic.
SwishAppeal.com, women's basketball...covered SBN-style... twitter: @qmccall3
There's another side
Kobe, LeBron, Baron, what do these guys all have in common? Something that makes them different from John Stockton. Don’t kid yourself into thinking there’s not a racial element here. It was Magic vs Bird, not Larry vs Johnson.
I believe I agreed with you above about the racial element (referring to why men won't be called boys)...
But as Queenie said and BearBint perhaps alluded to, “unusual” names are easier to use as identifiers because they are unique…
That, in and of itself, is of course racialized…
SwishAppeal.com, women's basketball...covered SBN-style... twitter: @qmccall3
Yet another perspective on the issue from Pat Grffin...
“I am woman (not a girl), Hear me roar, You Idiot!”
http://www.womentalksports.com/items/read/36/186324/i-am-woman-not-a-girl-hear-me-roar-you-idiot
When I get called a "girl," often by men who are far younger than me, it completely knocks me off balance. Now I have to decide if or how to react to the comment. Is it worth going to war about? Should I just shut up and ignore it? Is there some clever response that will get my point across without making a scene? Should I just let ‘er rip? I don’t think most people who call women "girls" or "ladies" do it with the conscious intention of trivializing women, but the resistance to NOT doing it is something to think about. For the women who call other women "girls," I think it is a way to mask or undercut their own power. It’s a way to avoid appearing too threatening, too strong, too challenging. Women have always needed to assure men that they are "feminine," heterosexual and sexually available to men in order to be accepted as athletes. The willingness to pose semi-nude is part of this. Calling yourself a "girl" is just another way to achieve the same end.
SwishAppeal.com, women's basketball...covered SBN-style... twitter: @qmccall3















