Sex-ay Sportz Lessons!

[Content/trigger warning: Sexism]


So, Noel S. Williams writing at the American Thinker wants to teach the lady feminists about sportz stuff?

He begins:

"Feminists are getting their panties in a twist because women's sports garner more attention by costuming beautiful athletes in sexy garb."

Annnnnd right away we know not to take Williams seriously. He says "panties in a twist."

What I've learned from Internet Feminism is that whenever dudes use that phrase in response to feminist critique it's code for, "Look here ladypeople, I'm a man. Sure, I don't experience sexism in the way that you, women, experience sexism. And sure, I don't know much about feminism, but I'm here to dismiss and minimize your lived experiences with sexism. Because I'm a man. And I know things. Better than you. And plus, I get boners at hawt ladies. So chill out."

And so he sayeth:

"Consider the wildly popular Lingerie Football League (LFL). Attendance is up, and the league is expanding, despite uproar from women's groups who claim that it's sexist. It probably is, but who cares? Men are the contented 'victims,' delighted to splash the cash as the ladies laugh all the way to the bank.

Feminist writer Courtney Martin denounced the LFL as an example of '[o]bjectification at its most pernicious.' So what?" (emphasis added)

Consider the fauxbjective ego-centrism of the male anti-feminist.

He doesn't see anything wrong with women pervasively being seen as mere objects of the hetero male gaze. Sure, it might be sexist to women. But so what? A man's experience is apparently the sun around which all experiences and harms revolve, so can we think of the men here? If he isn't harmed, then nobody is harmed. And plus, men are actually the real victims here. Indeed they're such victims that dudes like Williams have to put scare quotes around the word "victim" to illustrate that point.

Also suspect is that he litters his piece with several statements that contradict the underlying premise of his piece:

"For sure, sexism deserves our utter contempt, but...."

"Make no mistake: where sexism is proven, the penalty should be harsh."

"Sexism is intolerable..."

LOL. Sure, Sport.

Doesn't he protest just a teensy bit too much? It's almost like he forgot that he began his piece by saying:

"Consider the wildly popular Lingerie Football League (LFL). Attendance is up, and the league is expanding, despite uproar from women's groups who claim that it's sexist. It probably is, but who cares?"

Allow me to fix his statements so that his narratives fail to collide:

"For sure, sexism deserves our utter contempt, but [men get boners sometimes, and when they do, sexism is okay.]"

"Make no mistake: where sexism is proven, the penalty should be harsh. [but it's not sexism if it causes boners.]"

"Sexism is intolerable, [but boners that don't get to happen are even more intolerable]"

I mean seriously. The only purpose these "sexism is wrong" statements serve in a piece dedicated to trivializing sexism against women is to attempt to magically make the piece less problematic.

Moving on, several moments of Illusory Superiority were amusing. Like this sentence:

"Reflexively condemning as sexist those who cheer feminine aesthetics in sport undermines the splendor of modern feminism."

LOL @ your word salad.

Unfortunately, I'm not convinced this Williams dude knows enough about "modern feminism" to be able to render an informed critique of it, much less ascertain its "splendor." WeverTF he means by that I'm almost certain it's a "I'll call you fun feminist ladies hawt if you don't call me sexist for watching Lingerie Football" trade-off.

And then there's something interesting math. He cites the following numbers in an attempt to demonstrate how people, meaning "men," Just Like Watching Men's Sports More Than Women's Sports:

"Last men's World Cup: about 49,000 (for 64 games)
Last women's World Cup: about 26,000 (only 26 games)"

Like, those parentheses are his own and he still didn't see how his "evidence" fails to support his contention. (How do these bros get gigs writing at "American Thinker" anyway?)

And lastly, we can observe a predictably... simple view of humanity. Take:

"Indeed, many female athletes are proud of their appearance. And why not? They worked hard to attain peak physical shape, and unlike modern feminists in all their splendor, they are not inhibited by feminist orthodoxy."

Oh look, it's that bizarre "splendor" thing popping up again. Weird. But also notice how he assumes that the categories "female athletes" and "modern feminists" are mutually exclusive.

Kind of like his categories "sports fans" and "women":

"Frankly, most sports fans are men. And most would agree with Blatter's observation that "[f]emale players are pretty." If it helps promote women's soccer, as it does other women's sports like tennis, what's wrong with the new generation of feminist athletes showing off their assets? "

Notice, of course, no citations and no references to which specific sports he's referring to, just blanket generalization that erases all female sports' fans and all of the athletes who don't conform to the hetero-male-gaze-defined "pretty."

Because, under this Totally Not At All Sexist View Of Sportz, even if 52% of "sports fans" are men and 48% are women, it's 100% okay to alienate women sports' fans who maybe don't want to see other women babeified and female athletes who don't conform to the conventional beauty standards dictated by the all-important, always-catered-to hetero male gaze.

Because boners. Har har har. Boners apparently make sexism against women a trivial matter.

Whatever, Sport.