If it’s late August, it must be Little League World Series time – and our annual reminder of why Title IX is needed, but not enough.

The disparities in treatment, support, and attention for male and female athletes begins early, and nowhere is it more obvious than in Little League.

Just consider the annual baseball and softball World Series playoff events. The Little League Softball World Series, which just wrapped up, featured 27 games, with semi-finals and the championship aired on ESPN2. That’s THREE games.

Now multiply that by 11 and you’ll have the number of Little League Baseball World Series games broadcast – and many on ESPN HD (for those keeping track, that’s every single game played in the series).

Oh, and the August 27 finals are on CBS in –– HD.

Nearly every element of these two marquis events reveals institutional and cultural sexism (yes, girls are allowed to play Little League Baseball but it is rare and in many places are discouraged from doing so). One has only to glance at the websites (here and here)  for the two World Series events to spot vastly different levels of support.

Curious about the players? The Little League Softball World Series site features team photos. The Little League Baseball World Series site lets you click down to individual players – and watch video of them in action. The level of information (want souvenir tickets?) and polish between the two sites is absurdly disparate.

This is not meant as a criticism of the softball effort (May we remember that these are 12-year-olds?), but of the blatant institutional gap. The matter is, frankly, puzzling. Why doesn’t Little League at least try – a little?

Granted, right there in the media guide, the organizational timeline points out that in 1972 after the passage of Title IX that, “Little League resists the entry of girls into the program.” In 1974, the organization decides “to allow participation by girls” (after a New Jersey Court ordered them to), but immediately creates Little League Softball – which helps to keep girls from joining baseball.

Many years have passed, but not enough has changed.

As the girls and boys of summer play out their Little League World Series dreams — dreams structured by an organization that portrays itself as a gift to youth development – isn’t it time to make gender fairness a goal?

It would be as important for the boys as it would be for the girls.

http://www.softballworldseries.com/schedule.htm

Former college player Megan Wood and current college player Rachael Goldenberg discuss the Women’s College World Series.

By Megan Wood and Rachael Goldenberg

Megan: First off, can we please talk about the gender performance of the players?

Rachael: Make-up, and bows and jewels, oh my!

If you interested in reading more about Megan’s views on the player’s style, check out this link.

Rachael: So, Meg, let’s get down to business: what did you think about the world series so far?  Homeruns seem to be the big story.

Megan: Offense is key this year. The game no longer revolves around pitchers duels– but instead is all about the long ball. In the finals last night, Florida and Arizona State combined for 7 home runs in 7 innings. Not to mention, Florida beat Alabama on Sunday 16-2 after hitting 4 homeruns.

Rachael: These high scoring games demonstrate a major shift in softball over the past few years. Big homerun hitters have dramatically changed the game.

Megan: Ultimately though the game’s unpredictable nature and fast- paced combination of short game and long ball is what makes for an exciting viewing experience.

Rachael: Another thing I noticed this year was a subtle, yet important change in ESPN’s introduction of the players. Last year the women were informally taped discussing their favorite musicians or movies when they were introduced. This year, the athletes were presented graphically on baseball cards which described where they were from and what position they played.

Megan: It seems as though ESPN decided to treat them more like professional athletes and less like Little Leaguers — which is fantastic.

Rachael: It’s not only great for the sport of softball to be taken more seriously but its also a big step for the female athletes to be treated as athletes first, individuals second.

Megan: Ok Rachael, most important question- who is going to win the series?

Rachael: I mean it seems like a no-brainer to me- Arizona State. They have dominated through the tournament. Combine freshman pitcher Dallas Escobedo’s unhittable rise ball with the best offense in the country and you have an unstoppable team. Oh, and they just killed Florida 14-4 yesterday.

Megan:

Sorry Rach, but I have got go with my home team Florida. If this World Series has taught us anything, it’s that anything can happen on any given day.  I would not be quite so sure that Arizona has this championship all wrapped up quite so soon.  Given Florida’s intensity, confidence and bats I think they can make it happen tonight.

Rachael: All right, well, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. One thing we can both agree upon though- what a great year it’s been for Women’s Softball!

By Megan Wood

Last night I caught the Little League Softball World Series semi-finals on ESPN2 — two exciting games that will have Warner Robins, Georgia squaring off against Burbank, California in the finals tonight. Never mind that one of the games was a 1-0 win in which Warner Robins pitcher, Avery Lamb struck out 12 and a smart first base play held what could have been the tying run at third. Unfortunately, this heads-up ball, in the scheme of things, doesn’t count. Or count as much as if these Little League Softball players were playing Little League Baseball.

You see, while Little League this year expanded the number of televised baseball games – some 62 Little League World Series baseball games are aired on television (ESPN, ESPN2, NESN) with the championship game earning a pre-game special in HD on ESPN and a time slot on ABC on August 2 — Little League Softball had the same schedule as last year. That is, three televised games on ESPN2.(There are 27 scheduled games in the tournament).

Yet, as I watched last night, I was impressed with what I saw. These twelve-year-old girls were no joke: I had flashbacks of the NCAA Women’s College World Series as I was watching these young pitchers throw rise balls, screw balls and change-ups, and seeing hitters pounding home runs out of the park (in the first game). These young girls are focused, driven competitors. Who says their talent is less worth watching than boys their age?

One had only to listen to the video bio clips of the softball players telling the camera who their favorite players were — several University of Georgia players including Megan Wiggins and Taylor Schlopy were popular — to see the value of role models and inspiration. It matters to see athletes who look like you, playing your sport. And yet, the lesson our children (boys and girls) get from such skewed attention is that men’s sports are more important than women’s sports.

Strikingly, media coverage of women’s college softball has generally improved in recent years and the 2010 NCAA College Softball World Series was well covered when it unfolded in May. What is happening with the Little League Softball World Series?

As they watch the Little League Baseball World Series — plus numerous teasers and ads for the games — young girls playing softball can only notice that their games didn’t quite make it onto television. What is the logic in that? How does this shape the empowered girl who thinks she can conquer any challenge sport has to offer if she is constantly shown that her pursuits are less valued? While boys have the opportunity to be inspired nearly every day and night from August 10-29 by their peers, girls get two brief windows to catch their Little League Softball counterparts: last night and tonight.

If you missed last night, better tune in. Quick.

Photo is for illustration only. Credit: Walla Walla University

By Rachael Goldenberg

Who would have thought that one call — way back on opening day — could determine the outcome of a collegiate softball season?

Wednesday, March 17 was the start of the season for Wellesley College’s Varsity Softball team. We had a strong team, and my teammates and I were excited, panting out our nerves as we finished our warm-up sprints. I could feel the brisk air enter my lungs as I tried to catch my breath. Our first double header was at DIII nationally-ranked Brandeis University and we were ready.

In game one we hit our way to a terrific 9-7 victory. In the second game, we were battling back and forth. At the end of five innings Brandeis led 6-3.  As we slipped on our batting gloves to launch our comeback, the umpire raised his hands. He was calling the game for darkness.

It was only after I dropped my helmet and muttered “good game” that I noticed our surroundings: We were the only ones in the dark.  Stadium lighting bathed the entire Brandeis athletics complex in bright light — except for the patch of darkness which enveloped the women’s softball diamond. The adjacent baseball field, abandoned an hour earlier by the men’s team, was completely illuminated along with the deserted track.

Clearly, someone had decided that although there were numerous lighting poles installed and electrical power sources run in order to install the men’s lights, it was not worth including fixtures and bulbs facing the women’s softball field.

Now, three months later, I enter my coach’s office to discuss why our season ended three weeks early. Turns out, that opening day 5-inning loss against Brandeis eliminated our chance at a regional bid. One college official’s call that female athletics did not deserve lighting (but the men did) had the ripple effect of ending my collegiate season early.

Softball is a sport decided by calls — the coaches’, the umpires’, the players’. As the sun went down at 6:56 pm on March 17, my teammates and I experienced the fallout of a college official’s call that the softball field didn’t need lights. I can’t help but see this as a deeper failure.

Discriminatory decisions have far reaching effects. This is not just about prematurely ending a softball game (and season), but perpetuating the belief that females don’t deserve — or won’t notice or don’t really need — equal facilities. Somehow, I couldn’t imagine the reverse happening: A men’s college baseball game called for darkness while a fully-lit women’s softball field right beside it glowed, unused?

By Laura Pappano

As long as we’re sharing old softball photos, here’s one of me playing at Yale in 1985.

Q: What does it tell you?

A: Probably not much (except that I’m a righty and played 1B).

The firestorm over the photo of Elena Kagan playing softball may – or may not – have been part of a not-so-secret code wink-wink to suggest that Kagan is gay and add a spicy subtext to the Supreme Court nomination process.

Kagan’s photo, released by the University of Chicago Law School, then, reveals what, exactly? That she’s a righty, too?

The fact is that softball is a popular recreational sport. Last week, Roll Call reported that nearly 300 teams had already registered among the Senate, House, and Congressional softball leagues. New York’s Central Park is also softball-saturated with leagues from the ultra-competitive magazine publishers to the official N.Y.C. Financial Services Softball League.

In fact, who hasn’t played softball? (And been photographed doing it?)

Whether or not Elena Kagan is gay or tuned to gay/civil rights issues cannot be parsed from a photo of her at the plate (though Pat Griffin takes a thoughtful swing at it). If Kagan is gay and wants to share, terrific. It would add to the lived experience of the Supreme Court justices. If she’s not, that’s OK, too.

What bothers me about all the hullaballoo, is that it’s a reminder of the pressure on women to — still – conform to narrow social and gender expectations.  Sure, softball is a popular sport among gay women. (Historically, in a time of rigid roles and repressed sexual identities, gay women found community and support on the softball diamond — and still do.)

But just because an unmarried woman who has risen to the top of her field plays softball, must this be considered “evidence” that she is lesbian?  Good at sports? Single? She must be gay! When I first saw the photos, I thought, Great! Maybe a Supreme Court Justice who cares about women’s sports! Yipee! Most troubling, however, is the possibility that the photo might have been used as a way to signal that or raise questions about Kagan’s sexual orientation in hopes of derailing her nomination.

In other words, this has become just another squeeze play at the plate in which female athletes — or women who merely play competently in a recreational game — must try to slide under the tag. The label is there and ready to be applied: Girly or Gay?

What does it say to the rest of us when someone as smart and accomplished as Kagan is still expected to “prove” her femininity?

My final college softball season starts in three weeks. Time to worry about my makeup and hair?

Softball may be a serious, competitive, slide-in-the-dirt sport, but as it grows in popularity (and TV interest), there is heightened attention — to looking good.

When I tuned into the Women’s College World Series on ESPN at the end of last season, it hit me: The players sported a perfect ponytails, sparkly headbands and ribbons — and enough layers of make-up to suit them for a magazine spread. From the shoulders up, they were vying for Miss Teen USA, not an NCAA national title.

One has only to read the coverage to discover that, like competitors in a beauty pageant, players actually schedule pre-game time for hair and makeup.

These women are fierce competitors and I know they mean business. We may be accustomed to noting perfect hair and makeup in gymnastics, but in women’s softball? (check out a few photos here, here, here, and here). Does Derek Jeter take time for foundation and bronzer before stepping onto the field?

Why must  female softball players reinforce their “girly” side, particularly for ESPN cameras? Doesn’t this hinder the message of female athletic empowerment that the Women’s College World Series is meant to convey?

Sure, we are all aware of the stereotypical line about softball –  that everyone is lesbian, that we are “dykes on spikes.” Why is it that no matter what sport women participate in that still today — it’s 2010! — gender and sexuality must take center stage over raw talent, athletic ability — and the drama of the game?

Wearing gobs of makeup (look at stills or clips and it’s not just a swipe of blush) during a national championship does not prove some quasi-feminist point that you can be cute and athletic at the same time. Rather, it reveals to the girls who are watching that no matter how strong, fast, talented or competitive they are that how they look matters most.  The Women’s College World Series is an opportunity to collapse female stereotypes of passivity and weakness, yet it’s become a stage to codify and perpetuate them.

And it’s not just softball. Just in time for the 2010 Winter Olympics, Lancome has unveiled a cosmetic line apparently inspired by the female athletes who will be competing for a gold medal.

Please, fellow female athletes, let’s stop getting dolled up to compete. Leave heavy make-up and perfect hair for dinner or the runway — not the diamond.

By Megan Wood

I’ve played softball for 15 years, and for nearly my entire career I have been coached by men. Sure, a few female pitching coaches helped on the side, but T-ball through high school, all of my head and assistant coaches were guys.

Even when I reflected on the umpires, tournament directors, athletic trainers, equipment vendors, and league leadership the people I have seen running my sport have all been of the same sex: Men, men, men and – yes – more men.

My sport may be dominated by female athletes, but males are running softball.

I wondered: How can this be? Women’s softball has gained in popularity, particularly over the last ten years, so surely there must be women at the highest levels administrating this sport? One has only to look into the governance of softball to see the male dominance.

Consider:

–   On the Amateur Softball Association of America (ASA) website, the 1,000-word chronicle of the game’s history dutifully describes the men who helped mold the sport BUT never mention the impact of women (beyond the fact that the sport was divided into three divisions: fastpicth, slowpitch, and women).
–  Only three of fourteen ASA Board of Directors members are women and no female has ever served as President since the organization’s founding in 1933.
– Of 25 national umpire staff members, only four are women. And while the ASA supports the International Softball Federation’s (ISF) umpire certification program (which allows umpires to officiate World Championships or international games), the ISF has certified 972 male umpires – and only 103 female umpires – since beginning in 1952.
–  Fewer women now coach softball than in 1977, down from 83.5 percent that year to 64.7 in 2008, according to the Acosta and Carpenter study on women in collegiate athletics.

We spend a lot of time in women’s sports talking about “progress” and the quest for equity. In softball at least, it looks like we are moving backwards.

Megan Wood is a senior at Wellesley College who is majoring in Peace and Justice Studies. She is a pitcher and left fielder on the varsity softball team.

The 2009 recreational co-ed softball season is well underway – and so are sexist practices. Why do organizers assume that female players are – by dint of being female – inferior players?

Planet Social Sports — which organizes recreational (emphasis on recreation) sports primarily in California and Nevada — notes in its softball rules that “No more than 6 men are allowed on the field at one time. There is no maximum number of women allowed on the field or in your line-up.” And if a pitcher decides to “intentionally walk a male player to get to a female player (italics mine) than [sic] the batter will be awarded two bases.”

There are leagues that let female batters choose to walk rather than bat if the guy before her walked.

That’s one of the “miscellaneous rules” in the Johnston, Rhode Island coed recreational softball league. The league may have the “Texas Swear Rule” in place this season – use foul language while you’re at bat and it’s an out – but finds nothing rude in assuming women are sure outs. (If you are short one female to start the game, rules say, the missing female counts as an automatic out until she arrives. There’s no such rule for missing men – even if the guy you’re waiting on is a complete novice and the woman is a former college player).

Coed sports are a terrific idea — but not if the rules perpetuate stereotypes which presume that any guy is better than every female. Why not just ask: Who played in high school? In college? Now, I’d back up in the outfield when I saw them at the plate — whether they were male or female.