Class Reflection

Overall, I am pretty satisfied with everything I have learned in this class this semester. I appreciated everyone who spoke up in class and shared their opinions during discussion, because comments made by others often sparked new ideas and thoughts that I would want to share. 

The topic that stood out the most to me this semester wasn't a particular topic that we covered in only one lecture, but the topic of fairness in sports in general. For me, I noticed this was a recurring issue in many of our discussions, including the discussions about sexuality, sex testing, and performance enhancing drugs. I came into this class thinking that I had solid opinions (eg. taking steroids to enhance performance is totally wrong, that sport is an avenue where everything is set up fairly so that people can compete together, that sport is inherently good, etc.), but they were slowly broken down as we had deeper and deeper discussions. For example, on Tuesday I realized that for issues like steroid use, I don't really know what my opinion is anymore, and I'm just kind of confused as to what is the best option (legalizing performance enhancing drugs or not). And even if there was a "best" option, is regulation even possible in the reality of sport in US society today? Even if there is a "Jedi" side of sports, does the "dark side" prevent what seems good in theory from every being practically applied? I feel like my perception of sports now is not a fair competition of who has worked the hardest or has been blessed with the best talent: It seems to be more of a competition of who has the most access to resources. Athletes with the best access to performance enhancing processes (legal or legal, acceptable or unacceptable), the best coaches, the best fanbase, the best of everything, seem to be winners most of the time. Society does influence sport, but it seems like sports is also a reflection of society at the same time. The problems found in sports are also found in other aspects of society: People with access to more resources, money, and power, "win," even though it isn't the same kind of winning as in sports.

Another thing this class has taught me is that for every issue that may seem black and white, there is a whole other complex situation behind the issue. For example, sex testing may seem like a black and white issue, but behind the idea of sex testing is the ideology that has been present in society for a long time: that women cannot be as successful or athletic as men, so there is a fear of the unknown.

Something that surprised me about this class (probably because I have never taken a class with Killick before) was that the Vegas rule was actually real in our discussions. I've had many professors claim that nothing we say will be used personally against us or leave the room, but I've seen that rule violated. In this class, I felt like we were allowed to talk openly and express our opinions regarding many "taboo" topics. 

Something that I appreciated about this class was how it challenged me as a writer and helped me learn to better express myself with words. I would recommend this class to any friend who is willing to work hard to learn more and stretch themselves in the area of critical thinking.

Bigger, Stronger, Faster

Common arguments used to support the ban on steroid use in sport is that it gives certain athletes unfair advantages (creating an playing field that isn't level for everyone) and that they have negative side effects that are detrimental the health of athletes who use them (Mazzeo, 2009).  The men interviewed in Bell's documentary, including his two brothers, use steroids to get bigger and perform better. For Mad Dog, taking steroids while playing D1 football "wasn't even a decision at all," because he "couldn't compete here" and "everyone who succeeded was using them." Bell's younger brother, Smelly, took them because he "just needed to get bigger," saying that as an athlete there is "no excuse for not being as strong as you possibly can be." 

This documentary was eye-opening in many ways, and it showed me that steroid use, like many other issues involved in sports, is not as black and white as it may seem. While Bell personally decided not to take steroids because he felt like he was cheating when he was taking them, the film presents the arguments for and against steroids in a way that does not seem to support or attack athlete steroid use. Bell analyzes how when people of power (eg. Olympic Americans, Arnold) use steroids and are caught, it doesn't seem as bad. I found it really interesting that steroids were the reason why the USA's olympic lifting team finally beat Russia, but in that case, their success was applauded because "ass kicking" is what we do here in America. I also found it very interesting that a lot of the negative talk surrounding steroids and its "detrimental health effects" might not even be true or research-based. One part that stuck out to me was the father whose son committed suicide, and the father blamed the death on his son's use of anabolic steroids. The statistics that Bell presented were surprising: The number of deaths caused by alcohol each year is much greater than the deaths caused by steroids (3 per year). 

Something else that stood out to me was that the man's reasoning for combating steroid use so adamantly was that "steroid use is illegal!" However, Bell showed that Congress did not listen to experts from the FDA or AMA when analyzing steroids as a drug, and Bell's interview with the Congressman who advocated the ban on steroids showed that the man was not very knowledgeable when it came to this area. 

Personally, I believe that before detrimental side effects on health can be used as a core argument against the use of steroids, more research has to be done. My position on performance enhancing drug use in sport is that it does give athletes an advantage over others. If steroids didn't have a performance enhancing effect, athletes wouldn't be taking them. Many athletes justify their use of steroids because they know that many other athletes are using them as well. In theory I believe that athletes should not cheat in any way, but I know that when it comes to regulating steroid use not cheating, it is difficult to find a practical system in doing so. 

Bell's discussion regarding sleeping in an altitude chamber as a possible unfair advantage reminded me of the research I came across when writing my paper about sex testing. Bell asks why the use of drugs in fields like music and war is acceptable, but in sports it is seen as cheating. I think it is because sports is a realm that is so public and deeply rooted in American culture, and we feel such a strong connection to it that when people cheat during competitions, we seem to take it personally, like something wrong has been done against us.

References:
Mazzeo, F., & Ascione, A. (2013). Anabolic androgenic steroids and doping in sport. Sports Medicine Journal / Medicina Sportivâ,9(1), 2009-2020

Crime and Punishment

After reading the articles of all the links included in this blog, I realized that the issue of crime in sport is a lot more complicated than I thought. Each of the links seemed to focus on something different: how the NFL deals with crimes and how the punishment wasn’t harsh enough, how the public should respect the privacy of women and how the Janay Rice video shouldn’t have been publicized, and how the public reacts more harshly towards crimes committed by black athletes than white athletes. There’s so many factors involved in the discussion of Ray Rice’s particular incident and how it is talked about in media.

I think Ray Rice’s incident is reflective of broader trends in US sport, but I think it received a great amount of attention than previous cases of domestic violence. According to the New York Times, domestic violence is actually the most common reason for arrest among NFL athletes, even though the rate of committing this crime is less than the national average (Irwin, 2014). Despite it being lower than the national average, NFL players, as famous athletes that we watch on tv and look up to, should be held to a higher standard anyway. Other NFL players that have been convicted of murder or assault are Josh Brent, and Dwayne Goodrich, and these are only the big name ones that received long periods of probation. As one of authors of the link mentioned, there was visual and graphic evidence of Ray Rice’s crime, and his ethnicity might have had something to do with the heightened discussion of his actions. Also, the NFL’s punishment that many believe wasn’t harsh enough brought the issue even more attention, and it brought negative attention to the NFL as an industry as well.

Right now, it seems like there is media that both downplays Ray Rice’s actions as well as media that criticizes his actions. (I don’t know if it’s because the media that I’m exposed to has changed since the start of taking this class). For the most part though, I think both the NFL and media have downplayed the situation and have made it seem like it is not a big deal for good NFL players to be committing these kinds of crimes. Through this, the media reinforces that it is acceptable for these types of actions to be done if the offender is an athlete or someone of value to the NFL industry. It is promoting the notion that if you are talented in the way of what society values (you are good at making touchdowns or throwing the football), then you won’t get punished as harshly for committing domestic violence offenses.

These trends in criminal activity that are broadcasted about more often than these crimes committed by “regular” people (non-athletes) might be a result of the common nature of the background of these athletes. One of the links had an article that lightly touched on this, and it discussed how an upbringing of athletic success is coupled with a sense of entitlement, and the notion that one matters more than others and is valued more because of one’s athletic ability.

IRWIN, N. (2014, September 13). The Numbers Game. New York Times. p. D1.C

Is Sport a safe space for LGBT athletes?

According to Nation's author Sherry Wolf, sport culture does not just reflect the sexual biases of the time, but it also helps to shape those sexual biases. I think the "Jedi" side of sports and how it should be, is fair and inclusive. However, as of now, sports doesn't seem to be a space space for LGBT athletes. This might be the masculine nature of sport itself (relating to our discussion regarding gender). An example of sport's masculine emphasis is when players are told they should not "throw like a girl" or that they should "man up." At the time Wolf wrote her article "America's Deepest Closet" in 2011, it was noted that "not a single player in the NFL, NHL, NBA, or MLB" had declared himself to be LGBT, even though survey data indicated that a "degree of acceptance" existed in those leagues toward LGBT athletes (Wolf, 2011).

Now in 2014, Jason Collins and other professional athletes have come out and have discussed their sexual orientation publicly. The fact that it has taken so long just for one person to feel comfortable to come out shows that sports may not be as accepting and "safe" as it should be. Collins does discuss how he is blessed with family and friends that not only accept but also support his homosexuality, However, he also discusses things that kept him from coming out sooner, like being "loyal to the team" (Collins, 2013).  He did not want it to be a distraction to himself or the team. Some other barriers that may exist are the possible skewed perceptions that people around an LGBT athlete may have. For example, Collins mentions how he might have to be more "physical to prove that being gay doesn't make you soft." (However, based on his play in the NBA he clearly proves that he can compete just as aggressively as all the other heterosexual players out there.)

Based on our discussions that we have already had in class, it seems like many issues we discuss (race/ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic biases) are a result from differences between people, which then exist in a hierarchy that separates the different characteristics of people. Regarding LGBT athletes, it seems like sports that are "safer" for them to play or are more "accepting" are sports like dance, figure skating, cross country/track, badminton, volleyball, and tennis. Many of these sports share characteristics with sports that the class discussion decided were what society deemed "good" sports for women to play. This shows that being LGBT seems to equate to being less manly or more feminine. More "feminine" sports are typically individual or judged subjectively (gymnastics, dance, etc.). This is obviously not true, because LGBT athletes can be just as good at any sport as a "normal" heterosexual athlete. Judging someone's athletic ability by their sexual orientation is just as ridiculous as judging someone's athletic ability by their skin color.

I've never been afraid of or mean to the LGBT community, but I have to admit that before I came to college I was as aware of the issues that the community faced. It was not until after I became a student advisor that I learned that certain things we say or phrases we throw around are microaggressions that can be unsupportive towards the LGBT community (eg. calling someone a fag, not providing a unisex bathroom at events, etc.) I think being educated as part of my job forced me to think about what I say and be conscious of possible alternatives to use in my daily language (eg. unisex pronouns like "ze"). It is not guaranteed, but personally it helped when I was educated by the LGBT community.

Collins, Jason. (2013). Why NBA Center Jason Collins is Coming Out Now. Sports Illustrated.

Updated 2014. http://www.si.com/more-sports/2013/04/29/jason-collins-gay-nba-player

Wolf, S. (2011). America's Deepest Closet. Nation, 293(7/8), 29-31.

Hoop Dreams: Is sport a viable passport out of poverty?

Overall, I enjoyed the documentary very much, and I found it interesting that although William was the one who was favored to succeed from the start, Arthur ended up getting closer to being a state champion than William did. I felt like Hoop Dreams captured a lot of the culture in West Garfield as well as St. Joseph’s. I don’t know how natural the behaviors on film were, but the presentations of the socioeconomic status of the two environments were very different. Not only was West Garfield a mostly black neighborhood, but it reflected a low socioeconomic status. The scene that stood out to me the most was the when the Arthur and Shannon were in summer school together for a remedial English class. The class was for freshmen, sophomores, AND juniors because there weren’t enough English teachers during the school year, which reflects the school’s poor public funding. Also, the way that the African American students in the English class speak and disrespect their teacher portrays them as uneducated and immature. This kind of environment is contrasted with St. Joe’s, where all the boys wear ties to school and William gets individual attention from teachers to help him succeed. Both William and Arthur discuss how the school is predominantly white and people are “different from back home.” The discipline is stronger at St. Joe’s, with detention and policies that “suspend you quick.” The gym was well-furnished compared to the netless and unpainted courts in the West Garfield neighborhood. Overall, the film captured the more wealthy and powerful class identity of the St. Joseph community compared to the underfunded community of West Garfield.

For both William and Arthur, getting recruited to St. Joe’s gave them the opportunity to play “better” basketball, and Arthur’s family said he matured after going. William had bad grades in grammar school but greatly improved his grades during his freshman year, mostly motivated by basketball. Because William was good enough to play varsity as a freshman, he was a hot commodity and that got the attention of people with power. For example, part of his tuition was paid for by an organization called Cycle, and because he was so good at basketball, he got his entire education paid for through connections of powerful people (like the head of Encyclopedia Britannica). He was also given a job opportunity over the summer through these connections. St. Joe’s viewed him as a valuable asset and therefore made efforts to keep him around. For Arthur on the other hand, his family had to pay for half of the tuition, and when the tuition rose, St. Joe’s made zero efforts to keep him there or help him with financial aid, although he was a starter on the freshman team. I forgot who in the film said it, but a fan or teacher explained simply that Arthur “wasn’t as good as they had hoped he would be, so they let him go.” He was required to leave mid-semester, which meant that he was behind in credits when he transferred to a public school near his home. Not only that, but St. Joe’s made it extremely hard for his family to access his transcripts to find his graduation status because Arthur’s family owed the school money. In the end, Arthur’s mom claimed that she almost wished that Arthur had never gone to St. Joe’s. Other people who were interviewed for the film felt that if he was good enough, arrangements would have been made to keep him at St. Joe’s.

Basketball played an extremely important role in the lives of the two boys as well as their families. William discussed how during the time after his injury when he could not play basketball, his grades slipped because he had become unmotivated. Many decisions were made revolving around basketball, beginning with transferring to St. Joe’s, going to a summer Nike All-American camp, and doing well in school. To William, it was his “ticket out of the ghetto.” For Arthur, successes that he achieves through basketball are celebrated by the entire family. The same goes for William’s family, and his brother kind of lives vicariously through him. Curtis Gates never got a college degree, so even though he was good at basketball, he ended up becoming a security guard with low pay. The parents of the two boys know the boys love basketball and there are several scenes of Arthur playing with his father, and William’s family watching basketball together.

Because basketball was so important to the boys, sometimes other priorities were not put at the top. For example, William and his girlfriend get into a slight argument about how he was not present in the delivery room when she gave birth to Alicia. William responds that there was no way that he could leave during ‘that time of the season.’ Also, because basketball was the number one thing for him, when basketball was not a present part of his life (after his knee surgery), academics also sank for him.

This documentary reminded me of many of the topics we discussed in class. One was the way the NCAA or universities exploit their athletes. It felt like the same thing was being done with both William and Arthur. With Arthur, it seemed like St. Joe’s used him, realized they didn’t need him, so they let him go. With William, St. Joe’s gave him many opportunities, but so that they could possibly obtain a state championship. The St. Joe’s head coach says at the end of the documentary “one walks out the door and another comes in.” I think this reflects the exploitive nature of the program and emphasizes the way athletes are used for their skills. William claims that basketball became more of a “job than a sport to play.”

This documentary also reminded me of the discussion we had in class about how retired pro athletes don’t have many options after their athletic careers are over. However, William and Arthur both received education because of basketball (even though a certain amount of effort and potential in education was required to get there – eg. William’s ACT score situation). I looked up what happened to the two of them after college – one got a seminary degree and the other created a charity foundation. Both of these opportunities were probably enhanced by the education both men received. Neither of them ended up making it big in the NBA, and education ended up being an equally important way out of the environments they had previously been in. In both their cases, basketball was not the guaranteed one way ticket out of poverty. If sports were the “passport” out of poverty, education would be the actual airplane. Sports allowed them to get an opportunity, but an education was required for them to pursue any of the opportunities that were presented.

References:

 Hoop Dreams [Motion picture]. (1994). USA: Public Broadcasting Service.

Interrogating the Presentation of Gender in Sports Advertising

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAcq_jvmXDo


This is Nike's "Just Do It" 25th Anniversary commercial that aired last year, kind of for all Nike products in general. It features both male and female athletes, and it also includes famous athletes as well as everyday athletes. After watching the commercial, I felt like the messages about gendered identities, roles, and relations were present but extremely subtle. I've seen many commercials that were extremely obvious in their use of stereotypical depictions of male and female athletes. I can see that Nike made a conscious effort to include a female athletes, both famous and not famous. Also, the commercial included a variety of sports, including running,  bullriding, dancing, BMX, soccer, wrestling, football, boxing, basketball, table tennis, dancing, and tennis. Famous athletes featured included Lebron James, Andre Ward, Gerard Pique, and Serena Williams.

Of all the sports featured in the commercial, all the athletes featured fell into the stereotypical "male" or "female" sports we discussed in class: the men were featured bullriding, participating in BMX, playing soccer, throwing a football, wrestling, and boxing. The female athletes were either running, playing table tennis, or dancing/cheerleading (Serena Williams is the exception). This implies that there was no female athlete that was good enough or famous enough to be featured for one of these male-dominated sports (even though there are many professional female soccer and basketball players).

Besides Serena Williams, the females in the commercial were marathon running, cheerleading, or dancing on the beach. Traditionally these are "accepted" forms of physical activity for females.
The main point of the commercial is that if you "just do it," you can beat a famous athlete at his or her own sport (which might be kind of a stretch). All of the famous male athletes are unnamed, with Bradley Cooper's narration simply stating: "pick on him," or "beat that guy." It's assumed that if you have Nike products you probably already know who Lebron James is when you see his face. When the narration is talking about the female amateur table tennis player, he says, "beat Serena" just in case you don't know who the famous female athlete is, but Serena Williams doesn't even play the same sport. Table tennis and tennis are different sports, but they're equated as the same in this commercial, which is weird. Also, when the female runner is being featured, the narrator tells her to run faster than a movie star (Chris Pine). This doesn't even make sense to me, because for all the male amateur athletes featured, they were set up against famous athletes doing the sport that the amateurs did. For the female athletes featured, it felt like Serena Williams was just chosen because she was the most famous female athlete they could find. Also, she's featured wearing a full pink outfit, including skirt and pink headband (as if we have to be reminded that even though she's very muscular and a great athlete, she's female).

 The stereotypical depiction of men and women in advertisements is problematic because studies have shown that "repeated exposure to selective portrayals" of gender groups can lead to viewers adopting distorted beliefs about those groups (Rubie-Davies, 2013). Although subtle, the commercial highlighted that if you're a female athlete, there are certain acceptable forms of athletics that are acceptable, including running, cheer/dance, and maybe table tennis. Also, you probably aren't good enough to face other athletes, but you might be more athletic than other "regular" people. Not seeing any females portrayed in media playing "big" male sports like bullriding, soccer, wrestling, and boxing discourages amateur athletes from participating or even thinking about participating in a traditionally male sport. Also, by not even mentioning the names of the famous male athletes reflects that if you follow sports or buy Nike products, you should be able to identify the most famous male athletes in sports, but it's acceptable if you don't know champion female athletes like Serena.


References:
Rubie-Davies, C. M., Liu, S., & Lee, K. K. (2013). Watching Each Other: Portrayals of Gender and Ethnicity in Television Advertisements. Journal Of Social Psychology, 153(2), 175-195.

Exploring the Hegemonic Gendering process

Suits is one of my favorite television shows, and I think Harvey Specter's character on the show captures the dominant US societal norms of what an "ideal man" is supposed to look like. On Suits, Harvey is a young, well-established, good-looking, high class, expensively-dressed lawyer working at a big time firm. Not only is he rich, but he also has no problem getting laid or getting a beautiful girlfriend. While the show sometimes portrays him as a hard worker, he often effortlessly wins, in not only legal cases but also relational arguments. Harvey has a respected and thriving career after graduating from Harvard, and he also possesses a lot of power over his clients and other people in his office. He also sometimes chooses to blackmail or take advantage of others if it benefits himself or people he cares about. I think Harvey's character embodies what many young men in America strive to be and achieve.

The way I learned what a real man is supposed to look and behave is mostly from forms of entertainment like tv shows and movies. On shows like Suits, the white, good looking, well-dressed man is typically the good guy that the audience roots for when they watch the show. They are portrayed as successful, in regards to career and sexual conquests. Characteristics like physical and emotional strength, a good body and face, and being witty are rewarded and portrayed as ideal in US society.



My perception of a "real" man is heavily influenced by the culture that I grew up in. My parents both capture my perception of "real" men and women. My parents both immigrated from Asia and obtained their citizenship through studying in America and getting employed. They both left their families back in Hong Kong and the Philippines and traveled alone to a new place where they couldn't speak the common language. While they both are both at an age where they could choose to retire, and while they aren't exceptionally good looking or fit or well-dressed by society's standards, I still believe that their choices and actions reflect what "real men" and "real women" are. They value my future and family over buying material things that don't matter. They have so-called "average" careers but they both work really hard, and they are in a committed marriage. I think both of these are admirable.  My version of "real" men and women does not match what is commonly portrayed in movies and tv shows that reflect societal norms.I think this is because the influence of my parents and other family members has been greater than what is shown to me through forms of entertainment.