In the New York Times article, ESPN Slowly Introducing Online Brand for Women, Katie Thomas writes about the possible creation of an alternative ESPN channel marketed solely for women. The design of a complementary ESPN television channel, espnW, which is primarily targeted to a female audience, is an insulting and degrading idea for several reasons. By indicating that women need a feminized, ‘girly’ version of ESPN, the station is implying that women are inherently different from men in the way they enjoy, watch, and play sports. Therefore, the creation of espnW implies that women are not equal to men as sports fans or athletes. It also stresses societal gender roles by creating two distinct channels: one for men and one for women. It lastly denotes that ESPN is too intense or extreme for women and thus women need their own separate channel for a type of protection or buffer.
VERSUS
The idea of espnW is a distasteful and offensive idea for women’s sports in general. The creation of an alternative channel to ESPN indicates that female sports and male sports are intrinsically different and have dissimilar fan pools and needs. It implies that female sports are softer, weaker, less popular versions of male sports since females are commonly seen as the weaker and more defenseless sex. These weak, female sports do not belong on popular and widespread ESPN. The creation of espnW would allow female sports to be essentially separated, quarantined and caged, allowing ESPN to have only “real sports:” male sports. This could simply be a way for ESPN to devote 100% of its time to male sports, shunting female sports to its ‘side’ channel. In reality, female sports are extremely similar to male sports. Soccer, basketball, track, swimming, lacrosse, hockey etc. all follow the same basic rules with some small exceptions regarding physical contact. The only major difference is gender. Thus, by creating a channel just for female sports and consequently possibly having ESPN broadcast only male sports, the TV network is ultimately saying that men and women are not equal. There is a disconnect between them and their corresponding sports are thus unequal as well. Furthermore, it is implying that women only enjoy watching female sports and men only enjoy watching male sports. This is unfair to both genders. There are many women who love baseball and football: all male sports and vice-versa for men. The channel should not promote and enforce these gendered stereotypes.
The creation of a separate channel is also offensive to female sports viewers. ESPN seems to be saying that women need a more feminized, girly version of their channel to really enjoy it. They cannot just watch sports for sports sake. The channel has to be decorated and filled with traditionally female things to really allow a woman to relate to and enjoy sports. The vice president of ESPN, Laura Gentile, even says “women see us as an admirable brand that has authority. But they see us as their father’s brand, or husband’s, or boyfriend’s brand. They recognize it’s not theirs.” This is extremely distasteful to female sports fans because it’s essentially saying that they cannot enjoy ESPN. They should understand that men’s sports are for men only and thus, ESPN, which broadcasts mostly men’s sports, will not seem welcoming or appealing to them. This is ridiculous as it is applying a stereotype to male sports that they can only be enjoyed by men. In order for women to enjoy sports, their channel must incorporate “women finding self-esteem in sports and about getting a pedicure” (Gentile). This comment is extremely degrading as it plays on societal labels of what a female should enjoy. It denotes that a female sports fan will only be a sports fan or enjoy a sports channel if health, fitness, and beauty are included. This demeans women, saying that women only want to essentially help themselves and not simply enjoy being a sports spectator. Furthermore, by bringing up pedicures, beauty, fitness etc., it is reducing female sports fans to their gender and keeping them from identifying as simply a universal sports fan. Instead, they will see themselves as inherently female and separate from male sports fans.
The need for other applications in the female sports channel also implies that women are less motivated, inspired and genuine fans than men. The only reason they could enjoy sports is if there are other aspects, such as health and fitness attached. It is not really for the sport, itself, that women are excited and intrigued. This implication is frustrating and demeaning especially for women who are really involved and captivated by sports. This insinuation was further reinforced at a retreat hosted by ESPN to toss around and discuss the idea of espnW. The retreat had activities including sunset yoga and ‘how to ride a Harley.’ These leisurely activities played into typical gender roles, implying that women should do yoga and would never know how to ride a motorcycle unless taught by a third party. This just shows again that ESPN is influenced by gender roles and thus the creation of espnW will thus reflect stereotypical values.
Women are also commonly seen as the weak, pathetic and frail sex which needs protection. The rough, brutal intense sports of ESPN could be viewed as too much for women to handle and thus the creation of espnW is a way to protect weak women from the cold, mean world of male sports. Although the channel never explicitly states that this could be a reason for espnW, it seems highly likely that it is. Why else would they create a separate female channel? Women love ESPN. One quarter of their viewers is female. There is no reason to create an alternative channel unless the corporation is viewing women through the eye of societal gender roles. Male sports are typically more physical. Female football almost entirely does not exist. Male lacrosse, ice hockey, wrestling and boxing allow for much more physical contact and fighting. Thus, females should be sheltered from such recreational violence. It would hurt and tarnish their character and soul. Again, this reflects age old assumptions about women. Women are still sometimes seen as pure creatures who should remain in the household untouched by the filthiness of outside society. This remains a common assumption even though women have proven time and time again to be as strong (if not stronger) as men. They are equal to men and should be able to enjoy and watch whatever they choose. They should not be treated as less powerful, capable or formidable as men just because in the past, this has been the common and almost universally accepted assumption.
The idea of a separate women’s channel also could be used to regulate and control threatening women. Sports have always been a topic that many men can socialize and come together over. Many men bond over commonly loved sports teams or have riveting sports conversations or debates that can shape or break friendships. Furthermore, young boys are commonly raised to play and love sports at early ages. They are encouraged by their parents to join teams and enthusiastically route for the local squads. This same passion is not provoked, cultivated, or encouraged in young girls. Therefore, it is understandable why most boys and men share a common passion for sports as it has been engrained in them since being toddlers. This is not true with most girls and women as this passion is not encouraged in females and might even be inhibited or depressed as it does not play into typical gender responsibilities. Thus, sports conversations mainly occur between groups of men. Few women join in. The women who do join in can be seen as threatening and aggressive. They are intruding in a traditionally male pastime, crossing gender lines. They are interrupting an all-male sphere of power and domination. By having knowledge of sports, a female can enter this sphere and consequently intimidate men. As Susan Douglas talks about in ‘Castration Anxiety,’ society has a huge fear of powerful women and female domination. Thus, in order to alienate these ‘threatening’ women and put them back in their place, there needs to be an alternative sphere for them. This is where the creation of espnW comes into play. Having two distinct and separate channels for men and women keep females in the own separate compartments. They cannot threaten men or even relate to them. Thus, it is ultimately a way to harness and control female power.
The creation of an espnW is a demeaning and distasteful idea. The construction of an alternative ESPN for women implies that women do not relate to sports in the same way men do. It implies that there are inherent differences in the way men and women watch and play sports. It also works to essentially abash threatening women who are real sports fans by secluding them to separate spheres from men. The real change that needs to happen in ESPN is not to make a separate channel for women. Women are as eager and enthusiastic fans as men and many wholeheartedly love ESPN. Instead, ESPN should work on broadcasting more female sporting events. Also, ESPN female reporters should be chosen for their sport knowledge rather than their physical appearance. ESPN thinks that it is doing women a favor and making a mark in gender equality. Instead, if espnW is created, they are taking a step backwards. Other things at the network could be targeted instead to put women on a more fair playing ground with men in the worlds of sports.
No comments:
Post a Comment