The lovely folks over at Bitch are talking about a topic I brought up a few months ago during the summer Olympics: the sexualization of female athletes.

La Macha does a great job of asking people to think about the implications of the hyper-sexualized female athlete, and also if there's a way female athletes can negotiate between a sex positive image and the aforementioned.

There is a thin line, in my humble opinion.  I mean, really, where do we draw the line - or rather who is doing the drawing of the line?  Is it the female athletes themselves or the advertisers and companies that endorse these athletes?

Speaking of advertising, the folks over a Jezebel also brought up the issue regarding sexist advertising.  We all know sex sells - or do we?  Is this a universal claim or just something posed so consumers (you and I) remain complacent?

If you ask car racer Danica Patrick, she'd probably that this pose is empowering.  So be it.  Like I said in a previous post I don't have a problem with grown women doing what grown women want to do.

But then La Macha brought up another key point about 'white' female sexualization versus women of color.  Perhaps some of the more 'feminized' athletes who can sell a sexualized athletic image are boxer Laila Alli and WNBA player Candace Parker.  But what about when idiots call female athletes like Serena and Venus Williams monkeys, or when the women of the Rutgers basketball team are called nappy-headed hoes.  What are folks really saying about Western beauty here?  And what in the world are we, as consumer and sports enthusiasts buying into exactly?

As the debate continues, my head throbs and my blood pressure rises...

[sigh]

The Dream Big Toy Company just announced their new collection of sports-themed dolls for young girls.  According to the press release:

"Go! Go! Sports Girls are designed to be a fun and educational way to promote self-appreciation and the benefits of daily exercise, healthy eating and sleeping habits, self-esteem and overall healthy life-skills for girls, regardless of race and socioeconomic class."

Okay.  So, here's my two cents.  I appreciate the idea of distributing toys to children that promote a positive image for young girls - AND young boys.  (I still think the whole socialization of kids through gendered toys is problematic).  Go! Go! Sports gets an "A" for effort.  However, besides the toys being incredibly gender-specific (well, at least their not Bratzzzz), the dolls miss the mark when it comes to stereotyping 'race' according to sport.

Predictably, the only 'noticeably darker' doll is "Taye," and yes, she's the basketball player.  And guess what 'color' the tennis player doll is?  Yup, very 'noticeably lighter' with blond - no wait - yellow hair.  And then there are the ambiguously 'tan-colored' dolls that play soccer, softball, and gymnastics. 

I'll be fair and give Go! Go! Sports the benefit of the doubt and not automatically assume that this was done intentionally.  But even if it wasn't done intentionally, this only suggests that we still hold terrible pre-conceived idea(l)s about race and sports.

Argh!  Did Go! Go! Sports Girls miss my post on the conundrum facing African-American female athletes??  Seriously, I can send them a copy of my post. No problem, really.

Maybe I'm over-reacting, eh, no I'm not.  I think that we need to completely rethink how we engage kids through cultural exchange and solidarity-building.  Just look at how social entrepreneurs in L.A. are approaching multiculturalism with elementary kids.  It's not about branding a mix of identities according to stereotypes but about going beyond all of that and making it so kids understand that just because you're a tall black girl with braids doesn't mean you play basketball or can't play tennis.  Or just because you're a skinny white girl doesn't mean you only play tennis and never touch a basketball.

As the end of Hispanic Heritage Month draws near, I found myself interested in the barriers faced by Latina/o athletes in the United States. A really great New York Times article written in 2002 discussed the specific cultural challenges for Latina girls in sports. Poverty, language barriers, obesity, and high dropout rates prevent many girls from joining athletic programs. (These factors are all connected, btw. They are perhaps the most visible symptoms of racial inequity as it affects Latina/o communities in the US.) Cultural traditions also frequently place Latina girls in charge of household chores more often than their brothers. In addition, competitive sports are often seen as unfeminine and therefore undesirable activities for girls. Also consider the lack of Latina athletic role models; can you name three professional Hispanic female athletes? I can’t.

The New York Times cites these reasons for the under-representation of Hispanic girls in high school sports programs.

[Side Note: When I did a Google search for “famous Latina athletes,” Google responded, “Did you mean ‘famous latino athletes?’” It reminds me of that period of time when typing “she invented” into a Google search elicited the automatic response, “Did you mean ‘he invented?’” The bloggers went wild over that one (for good reason—check out this feminist critique), and I believe that Google administrators went in and manually changed the auto response. Ah, the evidence of a sexist society shall appear in the form of Google’s best attempt to make helpful suggestions for search term typos.]

USA Today also discusses how traditional household roles for Latina girls often prevent them from playing. Who’s going to take care of the baby sister while Mom’s at work? Who’s going to cook dinner when parents need to make money for the family? These domestic responsibilities often fall upon the teenage girls, and limit girls’ time to engage in after school activities, sports, etc. In Mexico, for example, most schools don’t offer after school activities. The afternoon is for helping the family, not for playing sports. That custom carries over across the border for many first generation families moving to the United States from Mexico.

"The racial/ethnic sub-group to benefit the most from sports participation is Latina girls," Women's Sports Foundation executive director Donna Lopiano says. "There's no question that if we can solve the problem of parental support ... and create a more nurturing, motivating environment ... that we can make some great contributions to Hispanic girls in terms of their future health and well-being." (USA Today)

While I can’t blame struggling families for asking their daughters to help, I do hope that Hispanic American girls will be able to overcome social barriers that make athletic participation difficult. It would be great to see more Latina girls and women playing sports.

Today I’m feeling really frustrated by the lack of female athletes represented in mainstream sports news. I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s worth mentioning again.

Sure, I sometimes hear about women tennis players or golf players or Olympic competitors, but when I peruse the front webpage of “The Worldwide Leader in Sports,” (a.k.a. ESPN) the large majority of articles (okay, sometimes all of the articles) are about professional male athletes or pro male teams. The message I interpret from the self-proclaimed “Leader” is that women’s sports aren’t important or interesting enough for the front page.

But I don’t mean to bash ESPN; most of the major sports networks are just as guilty.

Now let’s think about gender in the context of our sports vocabulary. Take a look at the sequence of letters that spell out some of the most popular featured sections: NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL. That is, National Football League, Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, and National Hockey League.

Although none of these titles explicitly mention men, everyone knows that the big leagues are for the boys. Any big team sport played by women includes the word “women” in the title: WNBA, Women’s Hockey, Women’s Soccer, etc. The common language we use assumes that big team sports are inherently for men. I’ve never seen a news section titled “Football” (with stories featuring female athletes) and a sub-section titled “Men’s Football.” It’s always the other way around.

In our common language, many generic athletic titles have been given male status.

This is similar to the way that the word “American” generally means white. Even though many non-white people identify as American, they are often tagged as “African American,” “Mexican American,” “Native American,” or some other “Enter Racial/Ethnic Description Here American," no matter how many generations they have lived in the United States. White people are simply referred to as “American,” not “European American” or any other descriptive title. The common language assumes that white is the norm when describing your typical American (if such a thing actually exists). Likewise, the common language assumes that male is the norm when describing your typical sporting organization.

So here’s my thought—what if we rename all of the professional sports organizations to reflect their respective genders? What if we use gender-neutral names to describe sports that are in fact gender-neutral? Perhaps we could change the NBA to the MNBA (Men’s National Basketball Association). If there’s still an NBA leftover, we could use that title to include both women’s and men’s basketball.

And if we changed sports language to eliminate generic titles that specifically refer to men, would that do anything to change the representation of women in sports news?

Maybe, perhaps, hopefully, or doubtfully. At the very least, it would give us some better language to work with when talking about gender inequity in pro sports.

A few days ago, I had the chance to talk to Anna Phillips, the incredible 22-year-old founder of Girls Kick It!-- a comprehensive sports program for young women in northern Uganda. Anna created Girls Kick It! with the help of Global Youth Partnership for Africa (GYPA) to empower and educate women, many of whom have been affected by war and poverty, through sports.

Me: I'm excited to get to talk to you. I've heard so much about you from the Play City team that met you at the LA Training Camp.

Anna: It was really awesome! It's so exciting to see these people just starting out with their projects. They have these great, crazy ideas-- and those are what make the best projects. It's amazing to be around that energy.

Me: You're leaving for Uganda tomorrow. How long are you going for?

Anna: For a year! I got a Fulbright scholarship to do research on the affirmative action policies for women in Parliament. My research focuses on the implications for the women's movement.

Me: That'll be really interesting. Where are you from originally?

Anna: I grew up in San Diego, but I've been living in D.C. and my mom lives outside New York, so I spend a lot of time here.

Me: How did Girls Kick It! get started?

Anna: It got started because I grew up playing sports in middle school and high school. I wrestled and played rugby. I decided to major in human rights at George Washington University after traveling to Africa the summer before I started school. It was a self-designed major that allowed me a lot of flexibility in the classes I was able to take.  

Then in January 2006, I got a chance to combine my passion for sports and human rights. I went to the Global Youth Partnership for Africa's youth summit in Uganda. GYPA brought together American and Ugandan youth leaders who were interested and passionate about HIV/AIDS, women's issues and reconciliation. After the summit, I worked with GYPA to create a sports programs specifically for women. There were programs where women are involved, but nothing specifically for them. With  the help and support of GYPA I was able to find amazing mentors and resources to create Girls Kick It! In particular, the advice of Awista Ayub, a phenomenal woman who created a girls soccer program in Afghanistan, helped me in the early planning stages. The sports for social change movement is relatively small, and everyone was  willing to help and meet with me.

Me: How old were you when you started Girls Kick It!?

Anna: I was in college, just finishing my second year. I ended up taking a year off to work on the project.

Me: Do you spend a lot of time in Uganda to run the program?

Anna: I spent about six months there when I first started, then I was in Israel for five months afterward, studying Arabic and Hebrew. I have had the opportunity to travel with the team to South Africa and Denmark. We have incredible coaches and women who are involved with Girls Kick It! and GYPA.

Me: How many women are involved in the project?

Anna: We have served about 250 women. It's a core group of dedicated women.

Me: What ages do you serve?

Anna: We have players who range in age from 8 to 26. We have a target age, but we won't turn anyone away.

Me: Where is Girls Kick It! based?

Anna: We're based in Gulu, which is the northern region of Uganda. GYPA has offices in Washington DC and Kampala.

Me: Can you tell me more about the Homeless World Cup?

Anna: The HWC is an international street soccer tournament comprised of 48 countries.  The teams are made up of people who are refugees, homeless, or displaced persons. The last two years we had a co-ed team, but this is the first year we will have an all women's team. The first Women's Cup will be held in Melbourne, Australia this December.

Me: You're a great example to all the Play City activists who are just getting started in the sport-for-good movement. What advice do you have for them?

Anna: I wish someone had told me this: you are going to fail. At some point, you are going to fail and fall on your face, but you need to get back up and try again. No idea is too crazy. What if the founders of Google had given up on their idea because it was too crazy? It's about thinking outside the box and being both passionate and realistic. If you can be passionate and realistic, you will succeed. And surround yourself with smart and supportive people.

Me: Why do you think the sport-for-good movement is important in the world?

Anna: It's time to think outside the box for alternative ways to improve our world.  It's not just about giving people things, it's about empowering them. It's so incredible to see more people and companies get involved in sports for good-- big companies like Nike putting in so much time and effort. It's really inspiring.

Me: How do you get your funding?

Anna: I was really concerned about money when I first started. My mentor at GYPA told me, "The money will come. Write a letter to everyone you know." That's what I did-- I told them why this was important to me and why it should be important to them, and the donations came in, whether it was for $5 or $100. If people believe in you, they'll believe in your cause. I also spoke at my synagogue and sent a press release to my local newspaper. Complete strangers donated to the project. You don't need that much money-- money will stretch.  People really connect to this idea, and they open their minds, hearts and wallets.

Me: What's next for GYPA and Girls Kick It!?

Anna: We have the Women's Homeless World Cup in Australia in December. I am also looking to improving the quality of the program, not necessarily expanding it.
 
Me: So is rugby your favorite sport to play?

Anna: Yes, I love it. Painful, but incredible.

Me: Will you get to play while you're in Uganda?

Anna: I hope so. I'll be in the capital, so there are some leagues there. I'm bringing my cleats just in case.

Me: Do you have any final words of wisdom?

Anna: Everyone has a passion and a talent. If you can find a way to combine the two, you will be successful. My passion was women's empowerment and my talent was sports-- that's why Girls Kick It! made sense.

Learn more about Girls Kick It!

Get the Girls Kick It widget-- put it on your web page and use it to learn more and donate to the cause: http://seed.sproutbuilder.com/TwC1jlbZC5RmM5TI