The list places Lambert in the company of Bernie Madoff, who cost investors $20 billion dollars in his ponzi scheme; Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis, who cost US Bank shareholders billions in the acquisition of Merrill Lynch; convicted domestic abuser Chris Brown; Lockerbie bombing convict Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi; balloon-boy's dad, who invented a hoax that cost local governments thousands and could land him in jail; corrupt politician Rod Blagojevich; and convicted child rapist Roman Polanski.
The two other oddities on the list were Jon Gosselin (of Jon and Kate Plus 8 "fame") and Nadya Suleman, aka Octomom. I find it interesting that of the two women on the list, one was included for playing a violent breed of soccer, and the other for reproductive excesses. I don't think I need to fully articulate just how ridiculous I feel Lambert's inclusion in the list is, except to say that I tend to agree with this article:
But, when we're talking about pariahs and getting into news events that had devastating effects on scores of innocent people, we should try to maintain some semblance of balance and sanity. Elizabeth Lambert may have been a poor sport and underhanded soccer player, but she hardly deserves a place among the ranks of terrorists and child rapists.
***
On a more sane note, a lot of people have written about the double standard Lambert faced for her actions. Shakesville, predictably, was the first blog to weigh in:
But Lambert being rightfully punished for her unsportswomanlike behavior, and subsequently owning her actions and apologizing for them, isn't good enough. She needs to be shamed—for ruining soccer.
"On soccer fields across the country, many kids, parents, and coaches had seen the video and wondered what had happened to the beautiful game." LOL! This is a joke, right?
Is that the same "beautiful game" in which Vinnie Jones famously crushed Paul Gascoigne's nuts?
The same "beautiful game" in which Zinedine Zidane headbutted…well…someone. Who knows? He headbutted a lot of people.
The same "beautiful game" in which Eric Cantona launched himself into the stands with a flying kung-fu kick at an abusive fan?
The same "beautiful game" in which Wayne Rooney casually stomped on another player's balls?
. . .
The problem is that when men are aggressive to the point of violence in sports, it's frequently seen as a good thing—at worst, evidence of a player who's mad, reckless, not to be messed with. But when a woman is aggressive to the point of violence, she's a monster.
Men who are violent give the "beautiful game" character. A woman who is violent destroys it.
You know, Melissa McEwan makes a great point here, but the problem with her examples is that most of them saw an even bigger storm of outrage than what Lambert faced, particularly Cantona and Zidane. As for Vinnie Jones, well . . . it's Vinnie Jones and Gazza, come on. Between the two of them they've been the target of more outrage than maybe anyone else on this list.
As time passes and memory tweaks itself, ridiculous, violent spectacle gets softened into nostalgic memory. The same thing will probably happen with Lambert.
Still it doesn't change the character of the criticism that Lambert faced - things like people wanting to prison rape and kill her or have rough sex with her were quite clearly not as evident in the other incidences McEwan points out. It's a distinction that even a sad panda publication like Newsweek was able to pick up on:
If it had been two men in a Division 1 college game, I doubt we would have gotten so exercised. When Oregon running back LeGarrette Blount punched an opposing player in the face earlier this season, his video also made the rounds. But while Blount was initially suspended for the season, he has already been reinstated. Even Michael Vick is playing football again—and he killed puppies!
And the AP ran a typically dry rundown of the sexist backlash:
"The bottom line is it's the female being sexualized," she said. "Some people like the fact that two women are fighting."
Also be prepared for a collection of comments in the article suggesting Lambert was wrong to "play the gender card" in her New York Times interview.
***
In the first post I did on the topic, Dan Loney suggested in a comment that the development of foul enforcement in the women's game is taking a cue from the men's game:
We might ALSO - should I have saved this for my own stupid blog? - see a re-enactment of the development of the men's version of the game. The game was hilariously rough, but "gentlemanly" - calls would slide because no sportsman would dream of, or tolerate being accused of, committing a deliberate foul. As the game got more profitable, and as the stakes grew larger, the incentive to foul deliberately and dive deliberately grew, and there was much more pressure on the referee to enforce the rules as written. So as more and more girls are playing for their scholarships and their livelihoods, we'll see the women play rougher, just like the men.
And Ms. Magazine lends another perspective to the development of women's competitive athletics in the USA (thanks to HollyT for the link):
In the early 1920s, women’s sports in the U.S. were picking up quite a head of steam. Women began competing in basketball as early as 1895, and by 1902 it was “one of the principle methods of pastime and exercise,” noted Harper’s Weekly. By 1914, the Amateur Athletic Union admitted women into competitive programs and by 1920 numerous colleges sponsored women’s sports.
But in 1922, Mrs. Herbert Hoover —wife of the then-Secretary of Commerce and president-to-be, and herself president of the Girl Scouts—helped form the Women’s Division of the National Amateur Athletic Federation. “Play for play’s sake” was one of its mottos, and that meant eliminating “highly intense, specialized competition.” In other words, Girls, don’t play too hard, don’t fight to win—and don’t even sweat, if you can help it.
Instead of promoting interschool competition, the Women’s Division tried to block it. Real sporting challenges were considered too stressful for the delicate American Girl.
Some quickly realized that de-fanged competition would not attract more girls to sports, as had been expected, but less.. . . Nonetheless, the Women’s Division’s philosophy proved remarkably enduring. It wasn’t until the 1960s that physical educators agreed to provide more opportunities for interschool sports.
And then, people started worrying anew about the strenuous nature of sports for girls and women.
***
For my part, I think ESPN deserves criticism for putting the video of Lambert into heavy rotation without more context or actual reporting. And when Time makes her one of the top ten pariahs for 2009, my response is "Really?". Despite the fact that the topic proved sensational I think both media outlets have some responsibility to keep things in perspective, and to think about how a momentary portrayal of a person in a soccer game impacts the debate at large about not just soccer, but women's sport as a whole. In the end the New York Times interview was a much more balanced and relevant account and explored many of the issues in a better way than ESPN's followup did, or Time's momentary lapse of reason.
Judging by more recent commentary, which seems to be realizing just how overly harsh the criticism of Lambert was, I'm hopeful that the incident will help change perceptions of the women's game. There's no question Lambert's acts became a cultural touchstone (perhaps even more so than ESPN foresaw) and I don't think they'll totally fade from the general soccer consciousness. There's simply too much to talk about.
Fake Sigi out.
0 comments:
Post a Comment