By Katie Culver

There is not a lot of media coverage of female athletes, but when there is I like my daughter, who is five years old, to see it. I try to records as many women’s sporting events as I can for her to watch.

Recently, we were watching the U.S. vs. Canada women’s soccer game on TV. As a 5-year-old, she’s a tough media consumer — few events hold her attention for long.

But on this day, we were excitedly watching and cheering on Alex Morgan, Hope Solo, and Abby Wambach. We noticed their incredible skills and talked about the positions they play on the field. My daughter was particularly taken with Alex Morgan with her tenacious play and goal-scoring drive (and yes, her pink headband, too).

For me, watching women’s sports is really important. I want female athletes to be household names that my daughter and sons recognize, talk about, and admire.

So I have to tell you, I am incredibly disappointed in Alex Morgan.  Along with two other athletes, Morgan is featured in this year’s SI Swimsuit Issue, much like teammate, Hope Solo, who bared all for ESPN the Magazine last summer. Beyond my disappointment that she would actually pose in SI for the annual sexist, exploitation of women issue (and more 0ften now, exploitation of female athletes), Morgan is NAKED, wearing only a painted-on bikini.

Even more disturbing for me was the accompanying interview in which she justified her choice, stating that because women get paid less than men, “We do need to branch out and look at different avenues to make more for ourselves. There are some things like modeling, but other athletes can do things like coaching or broadcasting.”

Why is getting naked the opportunity successful women too often embrace?

I don’t buy the quasi-feminist argument that they are empowered in displaying their bodies, in the name of making money and more recognition. I expect more from female athletes. They need to be the ones challenging the media’s degradation of women; who are proud enough of their athletic skills as world-class soccer players and courageous enough to say “no” to Sports Illustrated and any other media stronghold that continues to publish only what sells and not what makes this world a better place for women; to work to insist that women be valued for their skills and smarts, rather than STILL, ONLY—or at least over everything else—THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF THEIR BODIES!

So as a mother, what do I do now (except hope that my daughter never sees these pictures)?

The superstars — like members of the US women’s national team — are people that little girls like my daughter look up to and emulate. They need to keep the standards high, taking themselves as seriously off the field as they do on. Luckily we have Mia Hamm and Julie Foudy, Billie Jean King and many others who are committed to their responsibility as role models for young girls. Alex and Hope, maybe you can learn something from them.

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

Last July when Federal District Court Judge Stefan Underhill found Quinnipiac University violated Title IX, in part, because it counted cheerleading as a varsity sport, most of the debate was about – you guessed it: Is cheerleading a sport?

The decision, however, also discussed the school’s “roster management” practices that made it appear that there were more female athletes than there actually were.

At the time, ESPN writer Gregg Easterbrook complained that “the decision includes a good 20 pages of hair-splitting arguments regarding how many members the school’s various teams have…” – what he found to be “ultratrivia” that made the complaint a “junk-science lawsuit.”

What Easterbrook (and others) feel is focus on minutiae, however, turns out to be a pattern of dissembling that colleges use to skirt Title IX rules. NY Times reporter Katie Thomas has done compelling reporting to reveal a practice that is nothing short of – well – widespread cheating.

What women’s college cross-country team has 75 runners on its roster? Answer: The University of South Florida. (The men’s team has nine).

Thomas interviews women who don’t even know that they are included on the rosters of women’s sports teams – as well as those who know they are included but are not required to attend practice if they don’t want to. Not attending practice is unthinkable – even for children playing recreational sports.

All this reminds us that those who sound the drumbeat of Title IX hurting men’s sports are missing the point: Despite the law, despite “progress,” many institutions are still just pretending to play fair when it comes to gender equity in sports.

We’ve known for years that Title IX is not well-enforced. But the level of dissembling that Thomas’ investigation reveals is downright embarrassing to the Office for Civil Rights and to the colleges and universities who take public dollars and tuition money — and, by the way, not just from their male students.

Campus protest, anyone?

The debate is well underway about whether or not espnW is good or bad. Its just the sort of fun that – if Mike & Mike (heck, any sports talk guys) were to notice – might make for one of their classic on-air sets.

The back and forth might be mostly entertaining if it didn’t hit a familiar old scar in women’s sports: Should we run solo – or play with the boys?

The fear of being ghettoized into a splinter non-product is legitimate (especially if we have mix-ins of health and beauty tips). While I generally oppose segregating womens’ sports because – well – it’s like screaming “JUST MAKE US THE JUNIOR SPORTS VERSION!!” – I do see some reasons why espnW – though the concept rankles – may be a good thing. And the reasons have – alas – to do with the failure of most media to see the compelling product that is women’s sports.

–     Coverage of women’s sports on TV is so horrendous right now, that there’s little risk of making matters worse (men’s sports make up 96.3% of airtime; women 1.6% and gender neutral topics 2.1%, according to the USC TV study)

–     In media, staffing matters and if more bodies are being dedicated to covering women’s athletic events, some of that video/reportage will end up on ESPN and elsewhere. Content rules – the more you have, the more places it can go.

–     The vague and shifting descriptions of espnW suggest that the concept is still being shaped. Few sports news outlets know very much about women sports consumers. This enterprise might enlighten them — and others. (Note to Sports Illustrated: Might be smart to offer the SI NFL shirt – free with subscription renewal – in sizes OTHER than L, XL, and XXL. It’s a pretty loud message that I’m not supposed to be reading).

–     ESPN’s recognition that women comprise 24% of its audience should also be a wake-up call to women: We have power to exercise. We can do more than spur sales of pink NFL jerseys. We can tune in to women’s games, follow our favorite teams on the ticker, build fantasy leagues with female players…The possibilities are endless (if only there were someplace to watch).

The bottom line: We’ve just been told we matter. Let’s find a way to use that.

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.

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.

It’s become standard: we listen and watch as men objectify women — and women play into it. We’ve got Serena naked on the cover of ESPN magazine, women pro squash players selling swimsuit calendars (and speaking of swimsuits, the SI annual issue is out next month).

But for at least one time slot on Tuesdays, a new TV show proves that two can play that game. I bring you, Conveyor Belt of Love. (Watch a short clip here).

I encourage you to watch the show, if for no other reason than its comic value. But for those who opt-out, here’s the rundown: Five women sit in director’s chairs and watch as a life-size conveyor belt hauls 35 slabs of meat (er, men) on by, one by one. Each man has sixty seconds to sing, dance, rap, recite or in some other way impress the women. Some men come by clothed, others more or less naked – and still other take off their shirts after being asked to do so by the women. The women have placards that read “interested” and “not interested” which they can hold up at any point in the man’s schpiel. At the end of the show, each woman selects one man for a date. The contrived setup makes for a mindlessly entertaining hour of television.

It’s obvious that the tables have been purposefully turned. The women on Conveyor are vapid — and the men are 10 cents a dozen. The females are unfairly judgmental and the guys are pathetically eager to please.

What makes this worth a conversation is that more than merely answering the Bachelor with the Bachelorette, this show offers something we rarely see: a vision of a successfully manipulated social climate. In this show, the women have done men one better. Conveyor Belt of Love, after all, is a program in which the roles could never be reversed without someone at ABC losing their job.

That said, I need to add that this arms race is not poised to turn out well for either side. I mean – what’s next? Where are we racing to?  The real-life meat market only grows less romantic and more embarrassing each passing day.

But the competitor in me has to admit that as far as gamesmanship goes, this is a brilliant little trick shot to put the women up one — if only for an hour a week.

1. A legitimately equal opportunity to develop athletic skills and play sports — from the start.

This means: girls should be handed a ball (instead of a doll or toy purse) as soon as they can hold something. They should be dressed appropriately so they can run, climb, jump as much as boys do. Girls should be taken to watch sporting events and have pictures of female athlete role models hanging on their walls. And girls should have as many options as boys to play sports as early as possible in their lives.

2.     Equal air time on major networks and ESPN for MY sporting events, such as prime time for Women’s college basketball and (can I add LESS time and money spent on #*&$@&^$ football?)

3. Hot male commentators at every televised game (and yes, we should wonder if they really know anything about the game as they interview coaches). They should also be dressed interestingly enough that we viewers can comment on their clothes and hair.

4.   Commercials that offend men during football games (is it possible?!) Men in speedos (and heels?) serving drinks to women in a bar or women picking up men with ridiculous lines using  actual film clips taken from top female coaches’ press conferences.

5.     A major stadium built primarily for women’s sports (with luxury boxes featuring top women-owned companies, actually clean bathrooms, and that sell jerseys of female athletes in XXL).

6. The cover of ESPN devoted to top female athletes (wearing clothes).

And while you’re at it, Santa, please bring all of those poor NFL cheerleaders some football-weather appropriate outerwear.

Sure, research shows that high school girls who play sports are less likely than their non-athletic peers to get pregnant. But sometimes it happens.

When it does, schools and districts need fair and sensible policies that allow girls (with guidance from a physician) to continue to compete and participate, particularly early in the pregnancy.

For Mackenzie McCollum, a 17-year-old senior at Arlington Heights High School in Fort Worth, Texas and the starting setter on the school’s volleyball team, the trauma of discovering that she was pregnant was compounded by school officials whose misdirected response has left her and her mother battling the district and raising the profile of pregnant athletes’ rights. According to a report on ESPN, McCollum was at times barred from the team and then allowed to play, but given dramatically reduced playing time, even though she was in her first trimester of pregnancy and had the written support of her physician.  (Read and watch the story here).

Holly Powell Kennedy, Helen Varney Professor of Midwifery at the Yale School of Nursing, says McCollum, “received very appropriate advice from her clinician and should be able to continue with sports while pregnant…In fact, it is likely to be beneficial in many ways…”

But as Kennedy points out, this is more than a health matter. “Of course,” she writes, “the umbrella is the big ‘Scarlet A’!”

For most teenage girls, discovering you are pregnant is an unwelcome surprise. It is life-changing and identity-altering. More than 150 years after we met Hester Prynne, out-of-wedlock girls who get pregnant are still shamed. McCollum, who chose not to end the pregnancy because of her faith, bears the burden of stares in the hallways and whispered judgments.

It’s troubling when school officials reveal their ignorance precisely when a student most needs sensible support. Pregnancy is NOT a state of incapacity. McCollum’s future will be more challenging, but she is no less of a student or an athlete than she was last year. Like any high school senior, she should not stop doing the things that are central to her self-worth, identity, and—yes – physical and emotional health.

Athletes do, have, and will get pregnant (even when it’s not convenient). Early last year the NCAA issued rules protecting pregnant college athletes from losing scholarship support after reports of athletes hiding their pregnancies. (see the full policy here.)

– Ashley Shields played basketball at Northwestern Mississippi Community College while eight months pregnant. She gave birth to a healthy son.

– Syracuse University basketball player Fantasia Goodwin, who hid her pregnancy until just before the last game of the season, gave birth to a healthy daughter April 19, 2007.

– In 2003, Connie Neal played eleven games before she told University of Louisville coaches she was pregnant. Her last game: December 20th. She gave birth her to daughter Jan. 31.

The NCAA policy points out that “most pregnant athletes with normal pregnancies can safely continue to participate in team activities, with progressive modifications, as the pregnancy develops past the 14th week.”

Surely high school volleyball (even in Texas) isn’t as demanding as NCAA play. This thoughtful, detailed, and well-footnoted policy is easily find-able on the web. Surely McCollum could have received more enlightened support from Arlington Heights officials.

Or maybe they should be wearing an “A” for “Addled.”

By Laura Pappano

The visual is stunning.

Click here to see the Little League Softball World Series championship TV schedule.  You’ll find ESPN2 (the channel broadcasting women’s college hoops unless there is a men’s game that can’t fit the ESPN or network schedule) is showing two semi-final games on Tues., Aug. 18 and the championship on Wed., Aug. 19 (7 p.m. EST)

Reasonable airtime given that this is Little League. Kids. Right?

Mistake. That is the Little League Softball World Series. Click here for Little League Baseball’s World Series broadcast schedule.

Softball games may be limited to three on TV, but from Fri., Aug. 21 to Sun. Aug. 30, you can basically watch 12-year-olds play baseball all day long (and into the night).

Between the three channels — ESPN, ESPN2, and ABC – broadcasters will bring you 36 – yep, THIRTY-SIX!! – Little League games (including consolation play).

The disparity in prestige and attention might be chalked up to the American passion for baseball over softball, if Little League didn’t have such a troublesome record on gender issues. Sure, it now “celebrates” the move to allow girls (following a successful civil complaint by N.O.W. on behalf of Maria Pepe of New Jersey in 1973).

But the move in early 1974 to start a Little League softball program has been seen by some, including Jennifer Ring author of Stolen Bases: Why American Girls Don’t Play Baseball (Illinois, 2009) as a strategy to steer girls into softball and keep baseball for boys. Today, there are few girls on Little League teams. (see post)

It may be unfair to blame Little League for what is a larger cultural truth: baseball is not merely a terrific game, but an institution that celebrates male power. But it surely is not an accident that Little League dugouts are loaded with Dads re-living their youth and it’s a rarity to see a ponytail on the field.

I am the mother of a boy smitten with baseball and Little League. I love the game and played as a kid. But as an organization (and an effective one  – is there a better brand in youth sports?) Little League is missing an important opportunity. This is not just about allowing girls to play, but encouraging them.

And if there is a Little League Softball World Series, make it as big a deal as Little League Baseball. Otherwise the message is that 12-year-old boys are just more worth watching than 12-year-old girls. And, as one who has attended my share of games, I certainly don’t think that’s the case.