Ways of Grace

by James Blake

  3

  You Run Like a Girl

  Gender Biases in Sports

  My coach said I ran like a girl. I said if he could run a little faster, he could too.

  —Mia Hamm

  Women have certainly come a long way. “Running like a girl” used to be a slur, but now it can mean being as fierce on the soccer field as Mia Hamm. Today, “hitting like a girl” can mean being a knockout powerhouse like the mixed martial arts fighter Amanda Nunes. Nunes stunned the crowd when she defeated the equally intimidating Ronda Rousey in a first-round ten-second knockout at UFC 207 in December 2016.

  Historically, women’s sports and the role of women in sports have been defined and ultimately shaped by men, by their personal values and (mis)understanding of how men and women should look, act, and be perceived based on their gender. At times these biases have led to women being excluded from sports completely or prejudgments of what female athletes were capable of, and even how they should look.

  Sports began as a curriculum that was exclusively for boys and men. It was seen as an outlet for energetic boys and a way to create a masculine environment to bond, nurture sportsmanship, and create friendships. To that end, sports was incorporated into school curriculums by men, for men, and was geared to men, as a celebration of masculinity, strength, and the competitive spirit. When we look at how sports and subsequently the perception of the athlete has evolved, it is no wonder that women were excluded by default by sport’s very definition, framework, and parameters. Even the sports philosophies between men and women were markedly different. For women, the sports culture emphasized pleasure and social competition, with the ultimate goal being self-development and teamwork, as opposed to the male sports culture of winning, machismo, bravado, and being the best.

  Sports, and its evolution, have had historic and existing biases, and also a sports culture that nurtures and sustains them. In the 1900s, doctors thought that physical activity would damage women’s reproductive systems and also create muscles, which at that time were considered unattractive on women. Because of these misconceptions and seemingly personal biases, women’s participation in sports was limited to more feminine activities like archery, dancing, tennis, croquet, golf, and swimming. As recently as just 1972, the longest race women were allowed in was the 1,500 meter, because of nineteenth-century beliefs that women could not mentally or physically cope with longer events. Luckily, we know today that there are no medical, physical, or mental reasons that restrict women or girls from competing in sports, yet many biases, such as appearance, the competitive spirit, and perceptions of masculinity and femininity, remain as holdovers from this outdated mentality.

  Many of these physical, emotional, and psychological myths were less supported by medical facts than by stereotypically masculine values and ideals, which considered women in sports as incompatible with the role of women in society. Because of that mode of thinking—and there is still evidence of much-needed change—women who were overly competitive were stigmatized as being unfeminine and even masculine.

  In 1971, the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW) was created by female physical educators as a “model of athletic governance designed for female student-athletes, which incorporated the prevailing women’s sports philosophy.”1 Shortly after, in 1972, Congress enacted Title IX of the Education Amendments. A federal civil rights statute, the title states: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”2

  The AIAW was founded because at that time sports scholarships were not offered to women, creating a disparity between male and female athletes. It would also, according to a 1996 study by M. J. Festle, “help schools extend their sports programs for women . . . stimulate leadership among those (mostly women) who were responsible for women’s programs . . . [and conduct] national athletic championships for women.”3

  “The AIAW was a small organization with a limited budget. Unlike the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), and the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA), both originally men’s sport governing organizations, the AIAW made no distinction between revenue and non-revenue sports. In fact, fearing that with money came corruption and exploitation, it wasn’t until the latter part of 1973, in response to legal pressures associated with Title IX compliance, that the AIAW allowed women who accepted athletic scholarships to compete in its national championships.”4

  “During the 1972–73 season, the AIAW offered its first seven national championships (badminton, basketball, golf, gymnastics, swimming & diving, track & field, and volleyball), and by the 1980–81 season the AIAW national program had grown to 39 championships in 17 different sports with 6,000 women’s teams and 960 member institutions.”5

  Title IX affected sport-specific opportunities for women and girls as well as the ongoing evolution of school sport governance. The law meant that “institutions could not discriminate on the basis of gender, in any program receiving federal funds, including athletics.”6 According to Indiana Democratic senator Birch Bayh, the principal Senate sponsor of Title IX, the act was put forth as “a strong and comprehensive measure [that would] provide women with solid legal protection from the persistent, pernicious discrimination which is serving to perpetuate second-class citizenship for American women.”7

  In other words, Title IX made it a requirement under law for male and female students to be afforded equal federal funding in their high school and college studies. Before that, young women could not get an athletic scholarship in the States. Because of Title IX, women from all over the world can go to American colleges on a scholarship and get grants. This meant that women had the same opportunities as men, and it created equality in education and sports activities. As noted by Robert Everhart and Cynthia Lee Pemberton in The Institutionalization of a Gender-Biased Sport Value System:

  Historically and traditionally sport has evolved as a male domain, and it is clear that women and girls, as well as men and boys, have different sport participation roots. The evidence presented supports the notion that gender bias in sport is a product of not only different sport histories and traditions, but also an inherent incompatibility between female and male sport cultures and values. The dominant male sport value system has defined and delimited the parameters of sport for women and girls, especially and ironically since the passage of Title IX. Further, evidence has been presented to show that gender bias and gender discrimination are manifest in sport through differences in both the quantity and quality of the sport experiences/programs available, as well as the virtual elimination of female sport administrative leadership and dramatically reduced numbers of female sport coaches.

  The apparent physical, mental, emotional, and socio-cultural benefits of sport participation, have been, until recently, largely denied to women and girls. Given these contextual realities it isn’t surprising that as yet women and girls don’t participate in school sport to the same degree men and boys do. It’s surprising that given the long history of gender bias and discrimination, the many ways bias and discrimination have been institutionalized through male dominated norms and values, the operational structures and component parts that facilitate and/or delimit female school sport participation, and a differential valuing of the male/female sport experience, that women and girls participate in sport to the degree that they do. The question isn’t how come things are as they are. The question is how could they be otherwise?8

  Public Perception of Female Athletes

  Although today women have competed in and found success in almost every area of the male-dominated world of sports, they continue to struggle for balance, and at times acceptance, within a sport model founded on the outmoded and antiquated characterization of women as the weaker sex, and of strong competitive women as unfeminine and unattractively masculine. Though not as wide-ranging a
s the perception of women as the weaker sex (a myth shattered by Billie Jean King), this outdated notion of men and women as not being equal has often formed a baseline for standards and the criteria for how achievements are measured, how systems are created, and even how whole organizations are founded or structured.

  Although it is not as overt as in the 1900s, when doctors thought that physical activity would endanger women’s reproductive systems and also create “unsightly” muscles, outdated conceptions of women are still prevalent in sports today. Now they distinguish themselves in different, less overt, more subtle ways. For instance, such attitudes manifest themselves in the social expectations of male and female athletes, how they should look and act, and also in inequitable prize money and endorsement deals. Let’s take, for instance, Venus and Serena Williams.

  The unapologetic physicality and sheer prowess of trailblazers like Billie Jean King, Martina Navratilova, and Venus and Serena Williams debunked the stereotypes of how women play or should play tennis, and how they should look while doing it. When you combine these accomplishments with their activism—King for gender equality, Navratilova for gay rights and marriage equality, and the Williams sisters for equal prize money and women’s advocacy—they have not only changed the perception of female athletes on the court, they have also literally changed the game, and women’s roles in sports and society.

  The Williams sisters picked up a racket at three and four years old and have been a force in tennis ever since. Serena Williams has been working steadily for equality in endorsement monies with white female players. Despite being a top tennis player, Serena Williams was making $10 million less in endorsement money than Maria Sharapova, despite Sharapova’s not being a real rival to Williams for years. Williams’s endorsement deals exceeded Sharapova’s only after Sharapova tested positive in a doping incident, after which she was banned from playing professional tennis for fifteen months. This gap may point to long-held prejudices regarding female sports stars and how fans (and advertisers and sponsors) feel they should look, or want them to look.

  When the Williams sisters first hit the court, they were undeniably unlike any other female tennis players. They courted attention in not only their unorthodox and unapologetic tennis attire, and unabashed braided and beaded hairstyles, but also the sheer ferocity of their game. Though both tennis players, they are as different from each other as their game. Venus is tall, leggy, and lithe at 6’1”. Venus plays gracefully but unemotionally. She is a focused, strategic, and composed baseline player, and a skilled volleyer with an attacking all-court game. She has the record for the fastest serve by a woman, clocked at 130 miles per hour at the Zurich Open.

  Serena, at 5’9”, is, I’ll say it, a powerhouse, whose physicality dominates the game, her compact and muscular body belying her speed. Although not the most agile player, she more than makes up for it in—that’s right—power. Just as focused on the court as her sister, Serena is outwardly more passionate, at times explosive in her reactions to what she believes are unfair calls or treatment. In the 2009 US Open semifinals, she threatened to make a line judge eat a tennis ball. At the 2016 Wimbledon center court finals, after dropping a tie against Christina McHale, she threw her racket so far it ended up in a cameraman’s lap. That outburst cost her a $10,000 fine. Also a baseline player, she dominates rallies using her powerful serve and return and forceful ground strokes. Her wicked serve has been clocked at 128 miles per hour, and her slicing ace obliterates not only her opponents’ return but also their composure. If that doesn’t do it, her glares across the net are just as intimidating. Although the younger of these two immensely talented players, Serena has had a more successful tennis career. Not since Monica Seles’s “unladylike” signature grunt had there been so much talk about appearance and decorum in women’s tennis once Venus and Serena Williams arrived on the scene.

  As a mixed-race athlete in a sport perceived as white, I understand and have faced the challenges of always having to prove yourself and being judged as “that one” or of standing out because of the way you look. To add in being a woman and having to fight the uphill battle of proving yourself for your race and gender is an unimaginable burden. To have to go out on the court and play well, bearing that pressure on your shoulders, is an almost herculean task. That Williams has had only a few of those incidents of lashing out is to me an accomplishment, perhaps even commendable. Players, many not even under the microscopic lens of race and gender, have outbursts all the time. And most would not be able to survive on tour for a year, let alone twenty-one years, dealing with that kind of pressure.

  At thirty-five, Williams reached three Grand Slam finals and began now taking stock of her athletic career and her life. She won the Australian Open in 2017 against her thirty-six-year-old sister, Venus. This is another example of the Williams sisters breaking the mold because of their continued accomplishments at an age when most players are hanging up their rackets, and also how long their careers have lasted. During an interview in December 2016 with the rapper Common for ESPN’s blog The Undefeated, Common asked, “As we talk about black people being marginalized and women being marginalized, do you think it’s ironic that a black woman is in the conversation as the greatest athlete ever?” Williams replied, “I think if I were a man, I would have been in that conversation a long time ago. I think being a woman is just a whole new set of problems from society that you have to deal with, as well as being black, so it’s a lot to deal with—and especially lately. I’ve been able to speak up for women’s rights because I think that gets lost in color, or gets lost in cultures. Women make up so much of this world, and, yeah, if I were a man, I would have 100 percent been considered the greatest ever a long time ago.”

  It is hard to argue with her when you look at her accomplishments: she has won twenty-three Grand Slam singles titles (which breaks Steffi Graf’s Open-era record), and thirteen doubles titles, two mixed doubles, and four Olympic gold medals. Yet when it comes to prize money, she trails behind male tennis players, and until recently she made less money in endorsement deals than female tennis players such as Maria Sharapova who are no real threat to her on the court. Rolling Stone wrote in July 2013, “Here are the facts. Serena is the number-one tennis player in the world. Maria Sharapova is the number-two tennis player in the world. Sharapova is tall, white and blond, and, because of that, makes more money in endorsements than Serena, who is black, beautiful and built like one of those monster trucks that crushes Volkswagens at sports arenas. Sharapova has not beaten Serena in nine years.”

  When we factor in the media scrutiny about her body, her commanding presence on the courts, the vivacious colors and style of her tennis outfits, and her riotous, untamed hair, we have to wonder about this disparity. Considering the outmoded societal expectations and perceptions of female athletes, it is undeniable that Serena Williams has shattered expectations of what a female tennis player should look like and how she should also play.

  When asked about how she felt about the media’s public scrutiny of her body, Williams answered, “There was a time when I didn’t feel incredibly comfortable about my body because I felt like I was too strong. I had to take a second and think, ‘Who says I’m too strong?’ This body has enabled me to be the greatest player that I can be. And now my body is in style, so I’m feeling good about it. I’m just really thankful for the way I was brought up by my mom and my dad to give me that confidence. I could have been discouraged, and I wouldn’t be as great as I was because I would have done different exercises or I would have done different things. I totally embrace who I am and what I am.”

  In closing out a turbulent 2016, marked by great achievements and I can imagine even greater lessons, Williams reached the finals of three Grand Slam events, winning Wimbledon. She lost in a US Open semifinal. In an open letter in Porter magazine’s Incredible Women of 2016 issue, Williams took aim at the barriers that still hold female athletes back. She addressed it to all incredible women who strive for excellence
.

  When I was growing up, I had a dream . . . my dream was to be the best tennis player in the world. Not the best “female” tennis player in the world. . . . What others marked as flaws or disadvantages about myself—my race, my gender—I embraced as fuel for my success. . . . Women have to break down many barriers on the road to success. One of those barriers is the way we are constantly reminded we are not men, as if it is a flaw. People call me one of the “world’s greatest female athletes.” Do they say LeBron is one of the world’s best male athletes? Is Tiger? Federer? . . . We should always be judged by our achievements, not by our gender. We must continue to dream big, and in doing so, we empower the next generation of women to be just as bold in their pursuits.

  The Williams sisters’ goal of being at the top of their sport is clearly not nearly enough. While Serena advocates for women’s rights, Venus has championed equal pay for women since 1998, when she made her first public mention about equal prize money to men and women after a first-round Wimbledon match.

  The prize money on the WTA Tour is not equal to the prize money given to men. The WTA does not give equal prize money at all the events because they are two different tours. They give equal prize money at the slams when the men and women are together at the same event. But then the tours split, and the sponsorship dollars are not the same. The main fight for equal prize money was around the Grand Slams, which were drastically unequal in Billie Jean King’s era. She founded the WTT, which is a model for all the events counting equally with the men and women playing together. The US Open and Australian Open were the first to grant equal prize money to male and female champions, due to King’s efforts. And it took decades for the French Open and Wimbledon to fall in line. They did not become equal until 2007, when Venus Williams finally helped to win equal prize money for female tennis players. And it was about time. At Wimbledon, one of the major Grand Slam events and among the oldest tennis tournaments in the sport’s history, women had competed for less prize money than men since they began participating in 1880.