Hating on the WNBA is Sexist

I actually think the WNBA is doing pretty good for a relatively new product. The NBA wasn’t drawing tens of thousands of fans in its early years, players weren’t making a bazillion dollars a year. The WNBA is doing things right — expanding slowly but steadily, paying its players wages that are sustainable, and carefully advancing into the future. Granted, it would be nice if the same could be said for the Minnesota Lynx, but alas, they appear to be subject to the same vagaries of fate that their brother organization is.

So the WNBA is currently America’s sixth-largest professional league? That’s not that bad, really. They may not be making money, but they’ve got a good base of support, and they’re tied to the NBA, which gives them a solid base of financial support for the long term. (Indeed, the NBA wisely is using the WNBA as a loss leader, figuring that drawing new fans to women’s basketball will bring new fans to men’s basketball.) Their attendance isn’t growing yet, but it’s a steady 8,000 a game, despite the league playing in the summer opposite baseball and during a period when families are busy.

No, the WNBA is doing pretty well in its 14th year of operation, and every indication is that it will continue to do well for some time. But of course, the WNBA is basketball played by dumb ol’ girls, and so rather than note its success and treat it like the country’s sixth-largest major league, sports pages and newscasts continue to treat it as an oddity, something to shoehorn in on page C13 underneath the minor league baseball scores, or to mention in passing before tossing it back to the main anchor. And when it’s mentioned by (overwhelmingly male) sports columnists, it’s to talk about why women’s basketball is hated by everyone, which would seem odd, given that thousands of people go to each game. What’s more, it’s not good enough to say that it’s hated by everyone — they go forward and say it will always be hated by everyone, which seems to fly in the face of everything we’ve seen with women’s sports in the past forty years.

That’s why this brilliant takedown of just such a column is a must-read for anyone who’s ever been in the stands for a sporting event played by women. The column is by Alex C., a man (gasp) who actually toured every WNBA home venue in the country (double gasp) and actually likes the sport (bring me my fainting couch!). And he nails precisely why columns like this keep getting written:

So, now the inevitable question. Why? If the WNBA will indeed never succeed, why do professional writers, like Mr. Pearlman, continue to write such things? One would think if they were one of those who doesn’t care about the WNBA, (becasue nobody does) they would not even write about it, because, well, they (should have) no idea it exists.

I have one theory, and it might sound a bit far fetched, but stay with me.

The Answer? Fear. Fear of the unfamiliar.

When a guy like [Jeff] Pearlman sees a female athlete in the same place (i.e. the basketball court) previously occupied by their male counterparts, childhood sports heroes, or person of worship, there is a sense of fear being felt. Fear that a woman could actually compete and possess skills at a level only held by men for so long. What else could possibly motivate a professional writer to write about something that supposedly they care nothing about, and have no interest in? Money? No, there are plenty of sports out there to cover. Fame? Write about something that they admit no one cares about?

Nope.

Only one thing I can think of, knee-jerk fear, leading to irrational thinking, and thus taking the form of negative content in an attempt to disguise their prejudices as legitimate sports writing.

Nail. Head. Hit.

The hatred of the WNBA is all about keeping women and men in their place. Men are athletes. Women are not. And “everyone” knows that. “Everyone” agrees on that. “Everyone” will always agree with that.

But of course, not everyone agrees with that. When the US women won the 1999 Women’s World Cup, the Rose Bowl was full. NCAA women’s basketball draws well, both in person and on television. And yes, the WNBA still plays to half-empty arenas — but as anyone who watched a Timberwolves game can tell you, that doesn’t differentiate the leagues from each other.

Women’s participation in athletics has skyrocketed since Title IX was passed into law, to the point where it’s unusual for a girl growing up not to play some sports. The WNBA is the sixth-largest pro league right now. But it wouldn’t have existed save as a curiosity a generation ago, and a generation from now, it could draw as well as hockey — even as well as the NBA. That may scare some people. But that’s just too bad.

This entry posted in Feminism, sexism, etc, Sports. Bookmark the permalink. 

29 Responses to Hating on the WNBA is Sexist

  1. 1
    P Middy says:

    As someone who has watched and played basketball since he was eight years old, I can tell you this very plainly. WNBA, just like Collegiate Basketball, is not entertaining to me because it’s not the very best of the best. I’m not dismissing the idea that sexism is at play when looking at coverage of the WNBA, just that there may be some genuine dislike of the product, compared to what we are used to.

    The athletes in the WNBA have achieved a level of skill that I never will. But playing and watching are two different things. And it’s hard to want to watch, when it’s not the very best.

    I’m also curious to thoughts on WNBA players playing with a smaller ball. My feeling is that it is insulting to the players. They could easily play with the larger ball.

  2. 2
    Mandolin says:

    “, is not entertaining to me because it’s not the very best of the best”

    I thought there had been some investigation (with positive results) into the claim that the WNBA athletes are better than their counterparts at certain skills, and so they’re only “not the best of the best” if you’re defining what qualifies as “best” as “the stuff the men do better than the women.”

    But I don’t have the article with those claims on hand, so.

  3. 3
    sqrrel says:

    I’m from connecticut, where women’s college basketball is probably one of the most widely watched and commented on sports, due to the habit of the UConn women’s team of winning every year.

    “No one cares about women’s basketball” always seems pretty absurd to me. (although it is true that I don’t know nearly as many people who care about the WNBA specifically.)

  4. 4
    Robert says:

    Leela: Femputer, be reasonable. Sure men are annoying and they wreck up whatever planet they’re in charge of, but most of these men are sorta my friends. They don’t deserve to die.
    Femputer: Hmm. Perhaps men are not as evil as Femputer thinks.
    Thog: But they make fun women’s basketball.
    Femputer: What? Did you explain how the women’s good fundamentals make up for their inability to dunk?
    Ornik: Yes. They still laugh.
    Femputer: The men must die.

  5. 5
    Emily WK says:

    Shorter P Middy:

    Listen, guys, hating on the WNBA is sexist except when I do it because when I do it, it’s because their skill level isn’t high enough to be interesting.

  6. 6
    Silenced is Foo says:

    @P Middy – you would have a good point if it weren’t for the fact that collegiate basketball is incredibly popular.

    Honestly, the WNBA simply _doesn’t_ have the level of ability you see in the NBA, and that _does_ make it less fun to watch.

    But I simply attribute that to the fact that the WNBA is a much younger league, without as deep a talent pool to draw upon. As the game gathers more following, more girls will aspire to play and you’ll have more players and better players available.

    That said, considering the simple reality that the players are smaller than NBA players and have smaller hands, I think a smaller ball makes perfect sense.

    Is having lightweight categories in boxing and wrestling insulting to smaller players?

  7. 7
    mythago says:

    WNBA, just like Collegiate Basketball, is not entertaining to me because it’s not the very best of the best.

    College football and minor-league baseball are not “the best of the best”, yet sportswriters and sports fans seem to pay respectful attention to them. Please come up with a better excuse.

  8. 8
    Emily says:

    I actually very much dislike NBA basketball and prefer college basketball. I find NBA basketball boring because they tend to run to one end, score, run to the other end, score, over and over. I think the fact that college basketball players miss more is a plus, not a minus. Plus, I love the tournament. It just has so much emotion and so many great stories. You can see how much the kids care and how important it is to them. Not like any hum drum professional who plays all the time and doesn’t have the same hunger. Anyway, I’m a very passive fan, and I’ve never gotten into the WNBA, but I could see taking my daughter to a game. I think more accessible sports teams are better for little kids. You can sit closer, see better, etc.

  9. 9
    RonF says:

    No, the WNBA is doing pretty well in its 14th year of operation, and every indication is that it will continue to do well for some time.

    Hm. Define “doing well”.

    … sports pages and newscasts continue to treat it as an oddity,

    That’s because it is. For one thing, it’s the only professional sports league featuring female athletes – at least, one that’s got any kind of national media presence.

    But here’s the real key:

    They may not be making money, ….

    As pointed out, the league doesn’t stand on it’s own. It’s an appendix to the NBA.

    Their attendance isn’t growing yet, but it’s a steady 8,000 a game,

    The NBA wasn’t drawing tens of thousands of fans in its early years, players weren’t making a bazillion dollars a year.

    True. In it’s 14th year of existence the NBA had an average home attendance of 5008 people/game. That was the 1959 – 60 season, back before games were nationally televised, with a lot fewer people in this country and a much different attitude towards basketball and what constitutes a major sport in general (in 1960 boxing was a major sport). Back then basketball was playing second fiddle; the NBA was lucky to get their Finals broadcast on a tape delay, never mind live. These days basketball is a major sport and a key part of American culture, and WNBA games are both heavily promoted and televised. And yet they draw only 8000 a game. Some few NBA teams play to half-empty stadia. But most don’t.

    The other thing to consider about counting fans is that in this day and age, 98%+ of MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL fans never go inside their team’s stadium. If you want to count the number of fans of the WNBA in any meaningful fashion – especially if you want to compare it to historical trends or to other leagues – you have to include the number of people who watch it on TV.

    So to me here’s the key: even in 1959 – 60 NBA owners were mostly making money. Not a lot, sure. But the league stood on it’s own from just about the beginning. As long as the WNBA operates as a division of the NBA I wouldn’t consider them a success. When then stand alone on their own two feet and operate as an independent league I’ll call them successful.

    That, I feel, is the real reason that columnists see the WNBA the way they do. Not because of some pseudo-psychological construct of how they feel fear or predjudice. But because they see it as it is; a construct of the NBA that isn’t supported by its fan base enough to keep it going and that wouldn’t last a year without someone propping it up. My guess is that if they had to stand on their own they’d be in the same position as the National Lacrosse League; a league that has a short season and is played by a bunch of excellent and skilled athletes who passionate about their game. And who all have day jobs and whose games are occasionally televised nationally on ESPN2.

    The hatred of the WNBA is all about keeping women and men in their place. Men are athletes. Women are not. And “everyone” knows that. “Everyone” agrees on that. “Everyone” will always agree with that.

    Let’s see some evidence of this. The main point of this column is on the league, not about female athletes in general. Commentary on the WNBA isn’t equivalent to commentary on female athletes in general. Show me that the writer comments negatively on female athletes through his writing on college sports or the Olympics or on other areas where women play sports.

  10. 10
    ballgame says:

    I thought there had been some investigation (with positive results) into the claim that the WNBA athletes are better than their counterparts at certain skills, and so they’re only “not the best of the best” if you’re defining what qualifies as “best” as “the stuff the men do better than the women.”

    Mandolin, do you honestly think the best WNBA team would be able to beat the worst NBA team in a best out of seven series? I’m not sure they’d be able to win a single game, frankly.

  11. 11
    Ampersand says:

    Ballgame, probably a heavyweight boxer with a 50/50 win/loss record could beat the featherweight champion of the world in the boxing ring. That, in and of itself, doesn’t necessarily establish that the heavyweight boxer is more skilled or boxing at a higher level than the featherweight champ.

    (I have no opinion at all about basketball leagues — it’s an area of very near absolute ignorance for me.)

  12. 12
    ballgame says:

    That, in and of itself, doesn’t necessarily establish that the heavyweight boxer is more skilled or boxing at a higher level than the featherweight champ.

    The heavyweight might not be “more skilled,” but is certainly a better boxer.

  13. 13
    Silenced is Foo says:

    @ballgame – but still, nobody tries to pretend that the various lighter weights are somehow less legitimate or a joke compared to the heavyweights. I know that, at least in MMA, the lighter weights are far more entertaining as a spectator sport… the heavyweights decay into submission fighting on the ground far faster, which is generally less entertaining.

    The problem with WNBA isn’t just that people *prefer* the NBA, but that it’s treated as a joke. Throwing out the examples in here of similarly smaller (in terms of revenue) leagues, you have less-popular sports (like lacrosse) minor leagues (like, say, the AHL) and collegiate sports (NCAA).

    None of those get the kind of insults and derision that the WNBA gets, and while RonF makes a good point that the WNBA is given a free ride, I doubt most of the people mocking it are aware of its finances.

    RonF, you make a good point that a lot of sexism is justified by the perception that women are being given a leg-up by chivalrous helpers while the men work for their own success… but I really don’t see most fans being *aware* of the leg-up that occurs here.

  14. 14
    ballgame says:

    SiF: I agree with many of your points. (Although I might dispute the notion that nobody jokes about the minor leagues in baseball. There’s a reason “bush league” is considered an insult.) I was just reacting to mandolin’s comment suggesting that NBA players weren’t the ‘best of the best.’

  15. 15
    RonF says:

    Actually, SiF, I think a lot of people are aware of the WNBA’s relationship to the NBA. Sports columnists certainly are.

    I didn’t think the column was hateful. I think it was simply frank. Fourteen years of marketing by the NBA – an organization not known for incompetence at marketing – has not produced a market that enables the WNBA to stand on it’s own. Especially a TV market, which is what makes a modern-day sports league a big league. The writer thinks that this isn’t going to change. You may not like that conclusion, but I don’t think that pointing it out is hateful.

    I believe there are women’s professional basketball leagues in Europe. Are any of them moneymakers?

  16. 16
    GallingGalla says:

    The heavyweight might not be “more skilled,” but is certainly a better boxer.

    Dude. By your logic, an elephant who stomps on said featherweight is a better boxer.

    You’re not making any sense. Oh, right, why do you have to when you’re defending sexism?

  17. 17
    Danny says:

    “College football and minor-league baseball are not “the best of the best”, yet sportswriters and sports fans seem to pay respectful attention to them. Please come up with a better excuse.”

    I think they don’t need to come up with anything other than that considering they were talking what entertains them, not sports journalists and other fans.

  18. 18
    Simple Truth says:

    Jeff Pearlman posted an article from a pro-WNBA writer after receiving a lot of negativity about the original article he wrote. While it’s not him personally taking back anything that was said, it shows something that he solicited an article from someone on the other side. I doubt when he complains about Sarah Palin that he asks another writer to come in and write the “other side.” That’s as close to an apology as you get with some men.

  19. 19
    mythago says:

    Danny @17, really not following. The argument was that WNBA is not “the very best of the best” and thus is not worthy of respect or interest. College football is not “the very best of the best” either, yet is taken seriously by sportswriters. If your argument is that “best” is irrelevant, it’s just the sportswriter’s personal preference, then we’ve moved away from the pretense that it’s purely about merit and athletic capability.

  20. 20
    Robert says:

    College football is a feeder to BOTB, however. The WNBA is the “terminal degree”, so to speak; it doesn’t feed into something larger which people are more excited about.

    I’ve never gotten excited about either gender’s version of basketball, so I have no particular dog in the fight. But women’s sports seem intrinsically problematic as a professional enterprise. If women and men are mutually competitive, then eliminate the gender restrictions and have everyone play the same game. I’d be glad to see some women in MLB, for example; some are undoubtedly good enough. Maybe WNBA players are good enough to play against men in the NBA; I dunno the facts on that particular sport.

    But if women and men aren’t mutually competitive, then the less-competitive group’s sports just aren’t going to be terribly interesting to many people. “There’s this group of people, who aren’t good enough to play the game at its highest level, but who if separated out and given a special game of their own, can play in a kind of interesting way.” Yeah, not super compelling.

    There are a few sports where banding is appropriate – boxing, for instance, nobody wants to see a 210-lb bruiser kick the crap out of a 130-lb fighter. But even within those bands, gender integration would make more sense to me. Vaginas and penises have no connection with how well you hit a golf ball, or how fast you run from one base to the next. Integrate and let the chips fall where they may. Maybe in twenty years, half the best pro golfers will be women. Maybe in a hundred years there will be no female pro golfers because they just aren’t competitive. Who knows? Let’s find out.

    I think that if the sports leagues were integrated it would be harder for a female athlete than it is now, but her performance would be taken more seriously as well. Women’s “pro sports”, where the women aren’t as good as the men in the same sport, are basically just affirmative action. Maybe it will work to create a transitional culture where 2nd-rate female athletes can get 1st-rate attention and pay, and hasten the day when the 1st-raters get what they deserve…but it’s more likely to just foster a belief that women don’t do sports unless they’re subsidized, coddled, and protected. And that seems highly prejudicial, not to say detrimental, to the many female athletes who sweat their hearts out and do their best. They ought to be judged on performance, and nothing more.

  21. 21
    Danny says:

    “Danny @17, really not following. The argument was that WNBA is not “the very best of the best” and thus is not worthy of respect or interest. College football is not “the very best of the best” either, yet is taken seriously by sportswriters. If your argument is that “best” is irrelevant, it’s just the sportswriter’s personal preference, then we’ve moved away from the pretense that it’s purely about merit and athletic capability.”

    What I was trying to say that that person’s reasoning (“not the very best of the best”) for not watching WNBA is not a good reason because other people (sportswriters) think differently isn’t enough to demand they come up with another reason. Now mind you if they were trying to say something like its not the best of the best because women can’t play basketball as well as men then by all means lay into them.

  22. 22
    Daran says:

    The heavyweight might not be “more skilled,” but is certainly a better boxer.

    While GallingGalla’s snark was uncalled for, I do agree with her rebuttal. Weight classes exist in boxing in order to prevent worse (less skilled), but heavier boxers from prevailing over those who are better (more skilled) but lighter.

  23. 23
    Silenced is Foo says:

    @Robert – you don’t think that women and men train together? I’m sure they’re well aware of how they’d measure up.

    The only sport that women even come close to men is long distance running. Even outlier powerhouses like Serena and Venus would get stomped in the men’s leagues and would be lucky to play in the top 500.

    Tiger Woods proved something that people should’ve suspected for a long time:

    Even non-athletic sports will be easier for somebody who trains and lives like an athlete. All other things being equal, women just don’t have the raw strength to be athletes on the same level of athletic performance as men.

    So, much like wrestling, you have two choices:
    1) Segregate,
    2) Tell most of the players they just aren’t big enough (or male enough) to play… and who the heck would want that?

    I would love to be proved wrong. Maybe there exists a couple of sports where men and women can compete as equals…. but it sure as hell isn’t basketball.

  24. 24
    Robert says:

    Or option 3, tell most of the players that they aren’t big/strong/good enough to play PROFESSIONALLY – and let women be part of this vast and saddened group as well.

    People who aren’t good enough to be professional can still play for the joy and benefit of the game. I don’t play the occasional round of golf because I’m expecting to displace Tiger, but because it’s an enjoyable way to spend an afternoon outside with my dad.

  25. 25
    mythago says:

    Danny @21: we may be talking past one another here. Somebody whose excuse for hating on the WNBA is “they’re not the very best of the best” is going to have to explain why they pay attention to other sports that do not involve “the very best of the best”.

    Robert @20: sure, college sports are feeders for professional teams, but they’re certainly not “the best of the best”, which was the stated excuse for ignoring women’s sports.

  26. 26
    Mandolin says:

    PMiddy, sqrrel, and Danny, if you’re willing to say, do you identify as male, female or neither? I’m trying to work out how many of our comments come from men, and I know most of the other handles.

    (Galling Galla, if I’m remembering you correctly from other blogs, then I think you identify as female, but the blog I turned up when I searched your name had been deleted, so I wasn’t able to double check my sometimes sieve-like memory. Please let me know if I’m wrong.)

  27. 27
    Danny says:

    “Danny @21: we may be talking past one another here. Somebody whose excuse for hating on the WNBA is “they’re not the very best of the best” is going to have to explain why they pay attention to other sports that do not involve “the very best of the best”.”

    I can dig asking for an explaination of “very best of the best”. And like I say if their “reason” is pretty amounts to sexism then by all means lay into them. I think I may have started the talking past you when you brought sportswriters. It just seemed to me that you trying to use someone’s opinion (the sportswriters you bring up) of “the very best of the best” to break down someone else’s (the commenter you were responding to) opinion. Like a “Ha! They think differently from you so you must be wrong!” (In fact I kinda think the idea that simply “hating on the WNBA” is sexist is pretty presumptive but hey its not my post.)

    To answer your question Mandolin I’m male. Collecting data. Some sort of survey coming up?

  28. 28
    Mandolin says:

    “Some sort of survey coming up?”

    Yeah, I thought I’d crunch some numbers.

  29. 29
    plunky says:

    The “better boxer” thoughts are interesting. I think most people who watch fighting (I watch MMA, not boxing), would agree with Ballgame. When it comes down to it, a bigger fighter will usually rough up a smaller fighter. That’s why people cut weight.

    But one of the biggest discussions in MMA is about who is the best “pound for pound” fighter. Most people consider someone who is very successful in multiple weight classes to be a good contender for this. Anderson Silva comes to mind.

    I think the analogy is pretty tired though. I don’t know of anyone who thinks that Cyborg Santos is the best pound for pound fighter in the world, although she is often cited as the best women’s fighter.

    Do you think that the best women’s fighter could fight and win against some of the male fighters in her weight class? Overwhelmingly this is not true in wrestling. Urijah Faber vs Santos, who’d win? Is that because the best male fighter will always beat the best female fighter, or is it just that there aren’t many female fighters yet (like women who want to play pro basketball)?