Eric, my friend, I like our debates, but you have a tendency to misrepresent my views on your blog. This is probably the worst example.

I never said or implied that I was disappointed that Danica doesn't aspire to be a girl power icon.

The paragraph you plucked was after the link to the ESPN article, where Sirak bemoaned the obstacles faced by female athletes, and praised Danica for overcoming them. My point was simply that Danica, from what I've seen from her in her interviews, doesn't look at the world that way.

As the New York Times put it, she's interested in raising her sport, not her gender.

That's just the fact of the matter, and it's a fairly neutral fact.

If there's anything I'm disappointed about it is that this whole thing seems too inauthentic, too much the product of some massive Rahal marketing effort. In the dozen or so interviews I saw with her last week, I got the sense that every answer was scripted by some guy in a suit whose goal it was to maximize her profit potential.

It's all just too corporate. She talks too much like a politician.

(You could talk about the FHM photos too. I didn't -- we've done that issue to death. Danica is an attractive woman, but to my mind, she looks better in her racing outfit than in a bikini bent over a car in a f***-me pose. In the latter, she just looks silly.)

I'm fine to let Danica deliver her own message. But what exactly is that message?

First, that she wants IRL to be more popular (that's great, I guess, though I don't know that I'll ever tune in much). And second, that she wants to make a lot of money (that's morally neutral, in my mind).

As to the larger issues of gender politics... lose the martyr complex, Eric. It's unbecoming.

When did the "folks running women's sports" say that you're insufficiently gender sensitive? When did anyone accuse IRL fans of being knuckle-dragging neanderthals?

And what in god's name are you talking about when you say that the vast majority of women's sports are served with a heaping side of feminist activism?

Turn on a WNBA game this week. I challenge you to find a single piece of feminist theology in the broadcast. (Same for tennis, volleyball, skating, gymnastics, softball, golf, etc.)

Go check the WNBA website right now. Point me to ONE THING that counts as a "side of feminist activism."

There isn't any. What you'll find are photo shoots, players talking about prom memories, players talking about their fitness routines, and lots of (mostly boring) basketball talk.

The closest thing you'll find is a small bit about a campaign to raise money for cervical cancer research. Is that too much feminism for you?

The only gender political message ever served is a very bland one, and it goes something like this: women's sports are good because they give young girls a positive female role model.

I guess I don't really think of that as "feminist activism" so much as common sense and good parenting. If you really have a problem with that message, then yes, we do part ways at that point.

Eric can defend himself, of course, I'll just point out for Ted this recent example of racing fans, which I think would include IRL fans, being portrayed rather negatively.

"[S]tock-car racing represents all that's unsavory about red-state America: fossil-fuel bingeing; lust for violence; racial segregation; run-away Republicanism; anti-intellectualism (how much brain matter is required to go fast and turn left, ad infinitum?); the corn-pone memes of God and guns and guts; crass corporatization; Toby Keith anthems; and, of course, exquisitely bad fashion sense. ... It's as if ''Hee Haw'' reruns were dominating prime time, and the Republic was slapping its collective knee at Grandpa Jones's 'What's for supper?' routine. With Nascar's recent purchase of a swath of real estate on Staten Island, where it intends to plop down an 80,000-seat racetrack and retail center for the untapped New York City market, the onslaught seems poised on the brink of full-out conquest. Cover your ears, blue America. The Huns are revving their engines."

don't cheat, Lawrence. Include the full quote.

It begins:

"For a certain segment of the population, Nascar's raid on American culture -- its logo festoons everything from cellphones to honey jars to post office walls to panties; race coverage, it can seem, has bumped everything else off television; and, most piercingly, Nascar dads now get to pick our presidents -- triggers the kind of fearful trembling the citizens of Gaul felt as the Huns came thundering over the hills. To these people, stock-car racing represents..."

and the piece after:

"Whether any of that distaste and criticism is justifiable is -- like the pros and cons of requiring engine restrictor plates to control speeds at Daytona Speedway -- open to debate. What's beyond debate, however, is Nascar's surging ascendancy in American sports, and thus, by extension, American culture."

it's a book review. the author is saying, in hyperbolic fashion, that some people have a distaste for NASCAR culture.

Do people in the real world actually say that NASCAR represents those things?

NASCAR and the IRL are two quite separate worlds -- that's the whole point of the Danica Patrick story, in fact: that she's trying to rebuild the open-wheel side of racing, which is, right now in America, the forgotten stepbrother of stock car racing.

Does this really have anything to do with Danica Patrick and the WNBA?

"guilty until proven innocent when it comes to gender sensitivity. And quite frankly, I'm worn out."

Right the f*** on!

Cheat? I think the article speaks for itself, which is why I linked the full piece. You can't seriously say the author isn't portraying race fans negatively, even if you believe he doesn't personally hold the views he attributes to a wide segment of the population.

"Do people in the real world actually say that NASCAR represents those things?"

That racing fans are a bunch of backward rednecks? Quite a few, yes. Wasn't that the point the NYT writer was making -- that blue America views racing fans as "huns," violent, racist and anti-intellectual? I don't draw the distinction between NASCAR and IRL that you do, but then I'm only a casual observer of the sport.

"Does this really have anything to do with Danica Patrick and the WNBA?"

I thought the image of racing fans was being made an issue.

I’ll rise to Ted’s challenge on the gender politics of the WNBA. Here’s a link to their site that includes a whole laundry list of editorial comment praising the federal government for saving women from a pernicious sexism across the land:

http://www.wnba.com/features/titleix_020620.html

One part of the page insists that, “Low pay discourages women from going into coaching.” Another props up this classic feminist argument: “Female athletes trail men on sports moneys.” As if that’s not enough, young women are encouraged to “send in your Title IX stories.” But according to Ted, that’s not activism – it’s “good parenting”!

Here’s another feature on the WNBA site that aims to find out “What do WNBA players think about raising a family, sex, politics or Title IX?”

http://www.wnba.com/features/whatithink_020827.html

Predictably, most of the players “interviewed” talk about feminist favorites like systemic discrimination, “wage gap,” “gender equity,” blah, blah, ad nauseam. I don’t know if it counts as “good parenting” to discover what Sue Bird “thinks about sex and politics” but the WNBA is on the case.

More? Why not. According to the WNBA website, Lifetime channel airs a program called “Players Journal” hosted by actress Holly Hunter who is a nationally known feminist activist as a member of the National Organization for Women and on the board of the Women’s Sports Foundation. Hunter interviews WNBA players as they discuss political issues like Title IX and other “women’s issues.”

And lest we forget, last year at its All-Star game, the WNBA held a political rally at halftime designed specifically to pressure the Bush administration against adopting Title IX reforms. Unmentioned in the fawning press coverage of the event was that the one WNBA player who served on the federal Title IX Commission, Cynthia Cooper, was actively excluded from participating. Why? Because, after studying the issue and hearing testimony, Cooper proposed reforms. Now there’s an inspiring message for all the young women: serve your country, speak your mind, and get shunned by the feminist sisterhood in front of 20,000 people.

Much of women’s athletics, especially team sports, have long been regarded by feminist activists as a proxy for their larger political and cultural goals. It is important to note that not all WNBA players feel that way, nor do many of the fans. But feminist groups like the WSF, NOW, National Women’s Law Center and others co-opt women’s sports and the WNBA in particular to advance their agenda whenever they can.

And Eric’s right about another thing – get in the feminists’ way and you will reap an ad hominem smear attack to beat the band. More on that charming side of women’s sports activism shortly.

"Go check the WNBA website right now. Point me to ONE THING that counts as a 'side of feminist activism.' There isn't any."

[Chuckle] In light of Jim's comment I guess Ted's linkless assurances weren't all I presumed them to be.

Don't cheat, Ted.

Earlier today, I figured that Jim would write some contribution to this debate. I actually wrote a couple paragraphs to post; I was going to sign his name to it; I figured I could predict what he'd say.

I got it about 70% right.

(Jim, do you ever have anything to say about women's sports that isn't just an excuse for a Title IX rant? How 'bout talking about something else like, I don't know... basketball? Have you ever even attended a game? No, don't answer. I think I can predict that one too.)

And for your links, you find two archived stories from THREE YEARS AGO.

And did you even bother to read them?

The second link is an interview with three players and one coach. It asks: is Title IX still needed?

The short answers are ambivalent.

Katie Smith said: "It's tough.... I hope they don't scale (Title IX) back. I hope also that the men don't have to lose a sport or lose a scholarship because it's up to the universities and what they want to do. ... If I had a son and his sport got cut because of Title IX then, yeah, I would be upset because you would want him to have the same opportunities that you had."

Oh yeah, Jim, that answer is pretty much feminist dogma. The NWLC probably wrote it for her.

And I don't see anyone mentioning using the words "wage gap" even once, much less ad nauseam.

(The Holly Hunter ("nationally known feminist activist" -- oooh! scary!) show you refer to aired exactly one episode, as I recall. Again, that was three years ago.)

Yes, the WNBA has made some official statements supporting Title IX. It had a few things for the 30th anniversary. And it issued a press release during the committee process in '02 suggesting vague opposition to changes.

But so what? There are a lot of moderate, non-feminist people who think that Title IX has been a good thing. I know you aren't one of them. But does the celebration of Title IX really mean that the W has been coopted by radical feminist groups?

And it's not as if Title IX (or anything else feminist) is a regular part of programming. I've never even heard it mentioned at a game or broadcast.

I don't know what "rally" you're talking about at the ASG -- I wasn't there. And if the Coop thing is true, that's lame -- I'll try to ask her the truth about what happened.

(Note, however, that the W hasn't said a word about the recent changes. If they were so hell-bent on feminist activism, wouldn't they have said something? Why not give them some credit for staying out of the most recent fray, Jim? Would that pain you too much?)

The idea that the WNBA has been co-opted by WSF, NOW, et al. is retarded paranoia. Go to a WNBA game. Watch one on TV. Take an honest look around their website.

What you'll see isn't feminist activism. It's just a fledgling sports league trying to survive, without much success.

Maybe you're right that for some fans and some activists, the W only exists as an extension of feminist politics.

But what you can't see is that the obverse is true for you. For you, the W only exists as a whipping boy for your anti-feminist politics. Just like the folks on the other side, you can't talk about basketball without talking politics. And it's equally tiresome.

It's easier for you, more comfortable, to just sit back with your comfortable, self-assured theories.

Once in awhile, you should step out, and take a fair look at the world. And maybe, god forbid, even take a fair look at the WNBA. Do not remain intransigent to contrary evidence.

And stop pedalling bullshit about how it "always" comes with "healthy side" of feminist activism. If you actually watched a game, you would see what a lie that is.

It's basketball. Most of the time -- indeed, almost all the time -- it's just basketball.

and incidentally, those two links aren't even on the site anymore.

If you search Google for WNBA & "Title IX", that's how you find them. On the site itself, there's nothing of the sort.

What you'll find on the site is utter crap.

Like, Lindsay Whalen on prom: "I had a dress that I thought looked pretty cute. Prom is just such a big deal and the hype is so great that the actual event can't live up to the expectations. The pictures are cute. It's fun, it was a fun day. I had a great time overall. And we had a sweet limo."

Or, Swin Cash giving relationship advice: "At your age, life should be mo