My textbook frequently states and reiterates that sports are (in some part) a tool that men use to supress and opress women. A lot of what I’m reading seems to be heavilly opinionated and unsubstantiated. What do you guys think of this passage?
There is definitely a history of sexism in sports, but if I don’t watch a UFC match in order to reassure myself of some sort of gender dominance over women- I just want to see two people pit their physical abilities against each other.
The preceding passage establishes that power and performance sports assert that physical power and dominance is key to the nature of masculinity, and then calls this ironic, and claims that gender identity would not need these practices to assert these gender roles if this interpretation of masculinity was natural. That seems to be a basic logical flaw: just because these sports advocate aconnection between masculinity and aggression, you cannot conclude that this is necessary to the existence of that aggression in the first place, in fact it may be equally as likely that over aggression in sports exists to satisfy an innate desire for it.
I’m not saying that I believe that men desire violence by nature, but merely that this book ignores possibilities in order to promote its opinion.
The passage cited is parodic academic-left pabulum. I’m curious, however, as to why you signed up to take “Sociology of Sports”. It seems like putting a “Make Me Read Unreadable Crap” sign on the seat of your pants.
Because it sounds like an easy A.
it shows that you get ahead when you give 110%.
What about women who play sports?
The most oppressed of all.
They’re empowering themselves by subverting traditional gender constructs.
To be honest, my computer science program requires we take at least one liberal course per semester per year from a table of eligible courses that aren’t in our own department (the science department). It doesn’t leave much choice, so a few of us decided it might at least be interesting- get a chance to talk about sports in class.
Just start writing “Citation Needed” any time an assertion like that is made. At least it might make you feel better about spending money on such drivel.
I think it is complete bafflegab, produced by someone who is a pure academic, raised on a steady diet of verbiage.
It is essentially meaningless. It contributes no one iota of understanding to the human condition.
And you’d better memorize it and parrot it right back if you expect to pass this course.d
Sounds like it was written by a feminista who uses All Three Goddamned Names and All Her Letters.
In personal correspondence.
Frankly.
Title, author and ISBN?
That doesn’t follow logically. Sports are not necessary to establish a definition of masculinity as physical power and dominance - one can do that with examples like war and inter-group aggression.
Correct, IMO - I think the author is confusing cause and effect.
Also, what sports don’t involve performance? And I am not sure if “power” means “power over someone else”, in which case pretty much any competitive sport does that, or “power” in the sense of “generating and delivering force as quickly as possible”, which also covers most sports.
I don’t get the feeling that you will be doing much discussion of the Super Bowl or the Mets’ chance at a pennant. My college days are in the distant past, but FWIW you may want to consider sprinkling your writings with “neo-colonialism” and “hegemony” at least once a paragraph. Then find some obscure game played by an aboriginal tribe somewhere in the Third World, write a term paper on how it was used to subdue women, and you got an easy A.
YMMV.
Regards,
Shodan
Issues and Controversies SPORTS IN SOCIETY
Jay Coakley, Peter Donnelly
ISBN-13: 978-0-07-09184-4
ISBN-10: 0-07-097184-6
Okay, it’s written by two guys whose involvement with sports was a stint on the j.v. lacrosse team. 
Either that, or they’re subverting themselves by empowering traditional gender constructs.
I like your style. I had a couple of classes in college that took just such an unfortunate turn. I realized quickly that I was going to be penalized and/or have a tough time if I fought the mindset head on so I just played the role of the most liberal and politically correct student in the class (that is about the opposite of the truth). It was kind of fun learning new phrases and presenting ridiculous (but academically supportable) arguments even if I didn’t believe a word of it.
The professors ate that stuff up and I got an 'A" in both classes. The only problem with doing that is that you have to actually understand what you are talking about rather than just throwing in random phrases that you see in Mother Jones. Your cover will be blown quickly if they start asking you detailed questions about what you wrote and you can’t explain it well. You have to live the part.
Does the book cite any evidence to back up their claims?
I took a few “… Sports” classes in college because I figured they’d be interesting alternatives to other things in the required category.
Economics of Sports - Boring. Not worth it. Most interesting thing was I did an honors project on stadium financing.
Sport, Place, and Society (Geog) - Good class, mainly due to the professor being involved in the athletic department. Stuff about the spread of sports in the US - why basketball grew so fast, why soccer didn’t catch on, how college conferences would reorganize (this was 2010, so it was a hot topic). He was a big fan of baseball history.
Race, Politics, and Sports - Really interesting class. Stuff about the divide between ownership and players. He liked golf, so we focused some on racism there. I enjoyed what we did with Indian mascots.
Culture of American Sports - Not a great class, but got me to a minor in American Studies. Some focus on the rise of football to prominence. A bit of attention to Jim Thorpe as a local. Plenty on the rise, then fall of boxing.
Citations are a tool of dead white male privilege, the book derives all its claims from pure logic.
