Don Imus definitely picked the wrong team to call “nappy-headed hos.”  And now, amazingly, the infamous radio personality is paying for it and losing his gig.  It was 1980 when Coach Vivien Stringer, then coach at the African-American school, Cheney State, voiced a strong protest, objecting to the lack of TV coverage that African-American female teams got, along with their being left out of the Hanes Women’s Basketball Tournament.  It was only then that African-American women basketball players had begun to be nationally recognized at all, helped along by superstars Luisa Harris, the dominating center of Delta State, and Lynette Woodard, the amazing scorer at Kansas.

 The media focus has been on the racism of Imus’ remarks, but the sexism should not be overlooked.  All lady hoopsters have trouble being accepted by American society.  They just don’t live up to that “feminine” ideal and therefore are often seen as freaks, lesbians, mannish—or prostitutes.  Tattooed women, tough women, they’re just much too much for men like Imus and his” yukker” guy pals.  For years, the Imus show has been centered in racist and sexist jokes, skits and attitude.  Imus seemed totally mystified to be called out for doing what he’s always done.  He has been casually arrogant, casually dismissive, confident that he and his friends can insult and dismiss women, certainly black women, with impunity. This hardly puts him outside the mainstream, which makes all the scrambling righteous reactions interesting to watch.

This is a culture which has never been comfortable with its female athletes, insisting that they be (literally) circumscribed “ladies”—at least “cute” (white?) like the Tennessee “Lady Vols.”  The Imus show’s coverage of sports displays a lack of seriousness when it comes to women’s sports, and beyond that, serving up the worst the culture has to offer in dealing with women and African-Americans.  And this culture—in 2007—deals very badly with women.  And badly with minorities.  In pop culture,  all women apparently have to be “hos.”   That is how they seem to be perceived—in rap songs, in music videos, on TV, as lawyers in courtrooms—women are expected to dress and act and be a certain (sexually) female way.  There’s been a severe regression away from smart, independent women.  There’s silence on adding an ERA amendment to the Constitution;  silence on women’s and minorities’ precarious economic status;  silence on violence against women.  All of the silence makes sense in a repressed, regressive and undemocratic society.  As my sister said to me,  “If you fire Imus, where do you stop?”  Because he is one tiny tip of an iceberg which is absolutely immense.

Women basketball players have been plagued by accusations of being “wrong” females from the beginning.  American women who engaged in sports in the 1890s, from cycling and rowing to baseball and basketball, were likely to be considered less than respectable.  Not only were competition and aggression “unladylike,” but also very “unfeminine” and even racy.  At Smith College, there were strict prohibitions against males watching through windows while females played basketball.  And the (official) women’s game was limited to three dribbles and limited movement to prevent women’s developing too much strength and power.

In the 1920s, for the most part women were supposed to be concerned with being carefree “flappers” or homebodies, but not serious athletes.  The dangers were described in an article in “Harpers’ Monthly” in 1929, which described two “hysterical” women’s industrial teams playing in thick smoke before a “leering” crowd of men.  By the 1930s and 40s attitudes changed through dire necessities of depression and war.  Strong, capable women were more culturally acceptable, and this was the context for the great women’s basketball of the industrial leagues and traveling Red Heads.  Basketball became very popular with African-American women, who had club and industrial teams, as well as touring teams starting in the 20s, featuring incredible athletes like Isadore Channels and Ora Washington, in strictly segregated play, but often with men’s rules.  Some have argued that in some ways it is easier for a black than a white woman to be an athlete.  In the black community, a strong and athletic woman is more acceptable.  Or maybe black women have had more to worry about than their “femininity.”

The Red Heads fielded teams who toured and played throughout the country until the 1980s.  They played great basketball—men’s rules—and often beat men’s teams.  Their won-lost record was about 50% for the 1930 and 40s.  They scheduled 185 games in six months, through 30 states.  But a “Collier’s” article in 1947 featured photos with women players in short shorts and male players reaching to grab them.. The author said the players wore “sassy red slacks” and reminds the readers:  “It’s basketball-not a strip tease!”  The tone is sexy and cutesy, apparently making these athletes more acceptable to male readers.

By the 1950s and early 60s, the “lady” was back and society again frowned on strong athletes.  Attitudes stressing women’s weakness and femininity reigned.  Finally, in the 70s, women’s rules changed to full court play, Title IX created opportunities, and African-American women were finally accorded recognition.  But when the first women’s pro basketball league, the WBL, began in 1978, promoters wanted the women to play against Playboy Bunnies.  And when America’s Olympic women’s basketball dream team of 1984 took the floor they had not only to win, but to smile and to sell.  And in the present WNBA they get to play in the summer when the men aren’t using the court.

Sara Corbett (in her book  Venus to the Hoop) has said that women athletes are still “freakish trespassers in a male arena.”  Americans cannot seem to equate competitiveness and power with femininity.  Women are supposed to appear docile.  They still have to struggle for autonomy and respect even though they have proved themselves as athletes over and over again.  So in 2007 it‘s still tough for ladies to be athletes—for strong, sweaty, tattooed, tough women ballplayers to be respected.  Sports, which stress speed, strength and agility, are still considered male. As long as there is discrimination in American culture, it’ll be there in attitudes towards women’s sports on shows like the “Imus In The Morning” program.

Linda Ford is a women’s historian and bookseller;  co-owner of Half Moon Books in Madison, NY.  She is the author of  Lady Hoopsters:  A History of Women’s Basketball in America (2000) http://home.usadatanet.net/~iglunts/bball.htm.


ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.

Donate
Donate
Leave A Reply

Subscribe

All the latest from Z, directly to your inbox.

Institute for Social and Cultural Communications, Inc. is a 501(c)3 non-profit.

Our EIN# is #22-2959506. Your donation is tax-deductible to the extent allowable by law.

We do not accept funding from advertising or corporate sponsors.  We rely on donors like you to do our work.

ZNetwork: Left News, Analysis, Vision & Strategy

Subscribe

All the latest from Z, directly to your inbox.

THE WIND CRIES FREEDOM

The Wind Cries Freedom, the new book from Z co-founder Michael Albert, is a sweeping oral history of a future American revolution.

Through thirty interconnected chapters, it draws out the strategies, failures, turning points, and hard-won wisdom of a movement that called itself the Revolutionary Participatory Society. These are not the polished memoirs of politicians: they are the unfiltered accounts of people who organized in neighborhoods, hospitals, universities, stadiums, courthouses, and places of worship, and kept a shared vision alive through cynicism and exhaustion.

The result is speculative political fiction that reads like history: messy, human, and quietly hopeful in the way that only real experience and long thought can produce.

Get your copy and peruse more features on the book’s website below.

“Read it, argue with it, but don’t look away. The future it recalls is one we must still fight to deserve.”

Yanis Varoufakis

“The most unusual and intriguing combination of prophecy, manifesto, and movement building manual that I have ever encountered.”

Bill Fletcher Junior

“This work fills a huge gap in our social movement literature.”

Cynthia Peters

You've just read your article on Z this month.

DOES Z'S SURVIVAL MATTER?

You keep coming back for a reason: serious political analysis, movement reporting, and debate beyond the priorities of corporate media. Today, Z is in a precarious financial position. If Z is part of how you understand the world, help keep it going. The readers who give monthly are the reason this work survives between fundraisers.

Z is in a precarious financial position. If it’s part of how you understand the world, help keep it going.

Number of donors704
Our goal1,000

Sustainers at $9/month or more receive the digital Z Magazine.

Already a sustainer? Click here and we won’t ask again. Thank you!

Your reading count is stored only in your browser and is never sent to us.

Sound is muted by default.  Tap 🔊 for the full experience

CRITICAL ACTION

Critical Action is a longtime friend of Z and a music and storytelling project grounded in liberation, solidarity, and resistance to authoritarian power. Through music, narrative, and multimedia, the project engages the same political realities and movement traditions that guide and motivate Z’s work.

If this project resonates with you, you can learn more about it and find ways to support the work using the link below.

Z is in the most precarious financial position in its history.

Z is a place to think beyond the limits of the present.

For decades, Z has brought together political analysis, movement reporting, debate, and visions of a different future from writers and activists around the world. That work is more than journalism. It is movement infrastructure: movements need places to develop ideas, test arguments, learn from experience, and imagine what comes next.

In the first two days of this fundraiser, 19 donors and 8 new monthly sustainers stepped up. Help us reach 1,000 donors who keep Z independent, for everyone.

For decades, Z has published the analysis, debate, and visions movements need, free of paywalls, ads, and billionaire owners. If that work should continue, Z needs your support now.

Number of donors704
Our goal1,000

Sustainers at $9/month or more receive the digital Z Magazine.

Subscribe

Join the Z Community – receive event invites, announcements, a Weekly Digest, and opportunities to engage.

Exit mobile version