Some days I think I rant too much about the current perception of women’s sports. I ponder backing off and trying to appreciate the positive changes that women’s sports has experienced over the past few years or so. Then I am oh so quickly reminded when things like this happen.

Pardon me while I take a slight departure from the typical WNBA content I write about.

Joel Northrop, a high school wrestler in Iowa, was recently celebrated as a gentleman.

Why you ask?

In the Iowa state wrestling championships, Joel Northrop, who was favored to grab the title, forfeited a match. His opponent in that match was a girl. Northrop then released this statement:

"I have a tremendous amount of respect for Cassy…. However, wrestling is a combat sport and it can get violent at times," said Northrup. "As a matter of conscience and my faith I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner. It is unfortunate that I have been placed in a situation not seen in most other high school sports in Iowa."

In doing so, many, including several sports journalists, hailed him as a gentleman who has the utmost respect for women.

I would disagree.

The opponent? Cassy Herkelman, a freshman, who had a 21-13 record for the season, not to mention 8 pins – all against other boys. Conversely, Northrop went 35-4 , and was ranked fifth in entire state of Iowa. The question that drives through my mind is why would someone throw their chances of winning a state title, after obviously working so hard to earn a spot in the championships?

The last sentence where he says, “It is unfortunate that I have been placed in a situation…” Why does this have to be about him? Am I supposed to think that because an opponent, a girl, who worked hard and earned this opportunity, took away his opportunity to compete? He’s the one who made the decision, no one forced him to.

That leads me to his reasoning behind his decision; as he said, it was his faith. While I am not a religious man myself, I have never been down on someone making choices because of their faith. We live in a country where we are guaranteed freedom of religion, and every citizen in this country has that right, and in doing so, the right to make decisions in their lives based on their faith.

But I question him falling back on his faith. I question it because it really does not make sense for him to say so. Here is a young man, and a talented athlete. Athletic achievements just do not happen, they require work and determination. I doubt seriously that he was able to post the record he did without a tremendous amount of said determination and perseverance. To take all that and just give it up?

It doesn’t make sense.

Maybe it is because, as I said before, I am not a religious man myself. Maybe someone with strong convictions of their faith would be willing to make a huge sacrifice, rather than sacrifice their values. Maybe this is something I am unaware of because I come from a non-faith based upbringing.

But when he stated that wresting is a “combat sport” and can become “violent at times”, his faith does not address this? Violence is ok some of the time, and other times it is not? It seems too inconsistent to me.

My perspective I can guarantee is not a popular one, and one that many will disagree with. Yes, call me a conspiracy theorist if you will, but I think it goes deeper than faith. It comes down to fear. Not fear of losing, but fear of losing…to a girl.

It didn’t quite come to me at first; but then I saw another example of this, a subtle example, but it was there.

Watching the NBA All-Star celebrity game recently, I saw as legendary NBA player Scottie Pippen faced off against WNBA champion Swin Cash. I shouldn’t even say “faced off” because there was no effort to support this on the part of Scottie Pippen. Swin was driving to the hoop, and Pippen was standing under the basket as she did. (See you tube video, starting at the 1:20 mark)



And that was all he was doing, just standing there. He did absolutely nothing to try to do what he was supposed to, which was to defend the basket. Even the commentators made a remark about how he made absolutely no effort.

That’s when it hit me. How could a forfeited wrestling match and lacking of effort by an NBA great could show the exact same thing? These male athletes would rather do nothing, than risk the chance at experiencing being shown up, or defeated, at the hands of a female athlete.

There, I said it.

This fear is what I believe drives the many examples of negativity that I’ve seen directed at women’s sports. It begins at the public school level when a coach refers to his players at “ladies” or “girls” when he wants to motivate them. Young boys are conditioned to think that association to anything female makes them weaker and less skilled. After years of this kind of conditioning, to even think that a girl could defeat them at their own game must be quite frightening. Just the thought that female athletes could do it just as good or better than men evokes not only negativity toward female athletes, but toward females in general.

CBS sports columnist Gregg Doyel commented, “But if a boy doesn't want to wrestle a girl, he has that right. It doesn't make him a chauvinist or a coward. It makes him a gentleman.”

Once again, the story isn’t focused on the girl who lost the opportunity to showcase her wresting skills, but the boy who threw in the towel. The boy is the hero and is celebrated for standing up for what he believes in.

The Girl? Maybe she’ll have better luck next time.

Unfortunately for Cassy Herkelman, there will be no next time. Cassy will never have freshman year in high school to repeat. Many moments in an athlete’s career come once in a lifetime. Oh sure, she'll have three more years in high school. This year however, for Cassie, is gone. And as it is, Northrop is the one who's celebrated.

It seems that many respected his choice, but no one respected Cassy’s. When Cassy became involved in wresting, she made a choice too. That choice was to physically engage boys in a very aggressive contact sport, and in doing so, accept any of the physical consequences that may come about. In other words, she took the bangs and bruises, and chose to keep going. This is clearly supported by the number of victories in her record and her perseverance to continue.

It comes down to this. Instances like this play out the same way most of the time. It’s not about the female athlete who had to work twice as hard to gain their place in a male dominated sport; it’s about the male athlete who was put in an awkward position. It’s not about the female athlete who made the decision to accept the physicality of their sport; it’s about the male athlete who didn’t want to “hurt” anyone. This focus makes the male athlete the martyr or the victim, and only creates a bigger battle for female athletes in the future.

It’s a double standard, its insecurity, its fear. What is cheaply sold by many as respect, is a smoke screen to cover up the true feelings male athletes have that they don’t want to admit to.

I had a conversation a while back with a guy who had been invited a few times to be a part of a scrimmage team and play against the Phoenix Mercury. (For those of you who don’t know, that’s a professional women’s basketball team.) He shared with me that in the beginning, he had the same feelings, as not wanting to get physical with the players, believing it would somehow be inappropriate. Those feelings quickly changed however, while on offense, he set a screen for one Diana Taurasi. He promptly received a hard elbow to the gut as Taurasi fought against the offense. He then explained how it was evident to him that Taurasi chose to get physical, and by doing do, inviting those to get physical in return.

So he did, and amazingly, no one got hurt. To me, that is the truest example of what respecting female athletes should be.

He is the one who is a gentleman.

UPDATE: Check out Sarah Spain's blog post over at ESPN W

References:

Heart of matter: No one to blame in Iowa wrestler flap

Wrestler defaults at Iowa prep tourney rather than face girl

For first time, Iowa girl wins a state wrestling match by forfeit

With the suspension lifted on Diana Taurasi, there are many things that could be said. However, I thought it might be better if Diana said it herself. Here are some of the quotes from Taurasi on this experience:

(Click on the "As reported by..." links for read the full story)

On how she felt when she first heard the news:

"I played in a game on November 12 and I got drug tested after the game, like I have at least 50 times in the last eight years easily," Taurasi said. "And then after about two weeks...l had the letter of the positive test from the doping association and that's when I was feeling a state of shock. I was really numb from what the paper said because I knew I'd never taken it."

As reported by BuiltByDays, Swish Appeal.

On how she feels now:

"I definitely have the greatest sigh of relief. Yesterday and today, I finally feel like I can start putting it behind me. I do feel vindicated. I feel like the facts came out with all the information on the table," Taurasi said.

On how people reacted:

"There were two sides. There were people judging me at the drop of a dime but then there was the other side where the fans were great, my family, my friends, people who've known me for a long time and their unwavering support. It was two fold."

As reported by Seth Pollack, SB Nation, AZ

On the lab results being leaked:

"I feel like the facts came out, and it's like I said from day one: It's a road I never crossed," she said in a teleconference Thursday. "The whole situation was handled poorly -- from information leaking early to due process not being held the right way. The lab and all the things that we were wary of from the beginning were determining factors."

As reported by Mechelle Voepel, ESPN

On playing overseas again:

"I’m going to take a very close look at the next club team I play with because I definitely intend to go back to Europe because that is my profession. I play basketball, and it’s great competition. But I’m not going to put my career at risk any more."

As reported by Jeff Metcalfe, AZCentral.com

On her thoughts during the experience:

"I had those thoughts, You know, what if I don't get justice? What if I can't play in the Olympics or in the WNBA? What if I'm out of the sport that I worked so hard at and love so much?"

"People's first judgments were very negative, but at the same time the response I've received from so many makes me think people do care. This is a serious topic."

As reported by John Altavilla, Hartford Courant.

If the truth be said, any good boys high school team could beat a woman's basketball team. Watching woman's basketball is like watching midget wrestling. No one but dikes and divorced woman who hate men go to WNBA games.

Anonymity. It is quite an empowering thing.

I say this because anonymity is what allows people to make as well as allowing me to read wonderful comments, like the one above. It is really easy to make sweeping, generalized, ignorant, stereotype driven, spiteful, and downright rude comments such as these when you don't have to say it to someone's face. However, after careful review of the article it was related to, I can see why it attracted such comments.

This comment came on the heels of an article in the Arizona Republic with regards to National Women in Sports Day. At first glance, you would think that an event such as this getting mainstream media attention would be a good thing. Take a closer look, and you will see, even effort to give exposure to a celebration of womens achievements in sports, it is still laced with contempt for having to do so.

Let's begin at the top - the headline:

National Girls and Women in Sports Day: Who knew?

Who knew indeed. It seems that columnist Scott Bordow is having quite a revelation; the fact that people can actually have appreciation for girls and women in sports, and yes, have the desire to want to celebrate it.

I will give credit to Mr. Bordow, as he does start the article out with a great deal of statistics to indicate positive progress for women in sports. The effort is there, and for the most part, feels real.

Which makes me wonder why he would immediately follow with this statement:

Yet there remains the need - or desire - for a national day to honor female athletes. Meanwhile, we don't celebrate Boys and Men in Sports Day.

Whether that's insecurity or inequality, you decide.

Hmm, so I should decide? It seems to me that Mr. Bordow has already done so.

For the record, we do celebrate Men in Sports day. On any given day, one can one can log on to the front page of any major sports news website; you'll see a celebration and adoration of men in several sports, and the other men who write about them. What more could you ask for?

I remember a celebration of boys in sports day, the same year the Phoenix Mercury claimed their first championship title in 2007. As the first professional basketball team in AZ to bring home a national title, you'd think they would make the front page, or at least the front page of the local sports section. Nope.

So who did make the front page of the sports section you ask? A little league boys baseball team, from Chandler AZ, that competed in the little league world series. There's your celebration of boys in sports day. Yup, looks pretty equal to me.

But he does have a point; it is so unfair Girls and Women in Sports get their own special day, one single day, and Boys and Men appear not to. Forgive me Mr. Bordow if I don't shed a tear.

If you didn't sense the sarcasm in that last statement, prepare yourself. I'm just getting started.

Mr. Bordow doesn't stop there, and why would he? He's already established his platform of the-men-don't-so-why-should-the-women mentality when it comes to gender and sports. At this point, I am curious as to why, just a few paragraphs before, did he comment about the establishment of title IX, and how it has had a positive impact on high school girls and their involvement on sports teams? Prior to title IX, men and boys were the only ones celebrated in sports quite often on a daily basis.

I know I've made that point, but I still can't wrap my head around it. Anyway, I digress.

Again, giving credit where credit is due, Mr. Bordow does make another accurate observation, one with which I agree:

It's no surprise that Wednesday's 25-year anniversary has generated so little attention. For one thing, it's the same day as college football's national signing day. That's not the smartest scheduling.

Indeed.

However, it is followed by a statement like this:

Furthermore, isn't it the responsibility of the teams or leagues to earn media attention?

He gives the example of the UCONN women's basketball program, and because of their championship status, that they receive a great deal of press. While this is true, and that UCONN does so because it has had a history of amazingly talented teams, it is not the only womens basketball program out there that is worthy of media attention. In this situation, I'd like to know exactly what a womens team needs to do to "earn" this attention. I have yet to see womens basketball or womens sports in general give any reason why the media should not give them any attention.

Bridget Pettis comments on why this is:

"The media is deciding what's important," Pettis said. "I think they decide it's not as important as men's sports. You watch ESPN, and you'll see billiards more than you will see women's basketball. I think we deserve just as much exposure and let the public decide for themselves."

Agreed. Networks have the right to choose what they want to air, and what they feel is important. How can something ever be popular if you never show it?

In short, this article is nothing new. It represents the begrudging efforts and short sided perspectives that result in reporting events with regards to women and sports. There really isn't that much to say that has already been said.

Simply, it boils down to two words for me, equal and fair. Often these words are used interchangeably, but they are quite different with regards to the message they bring.

Question:

Would it be equal to have a Boys and Men in sports day just like there is a Girls and Women in sports day? Yes, it would. In ever sense of the word, both groups would get equal representation for that one day.

Would it be fair ? I would argue, no. As I stated, men get a majority of the sports media attention in this country, and usually have no problem continually doing so. Events like the Super Bowl are a celebration of masculine representation in sports, a luxury that women in sports do not often get.

And as long as there are people like Scott Bordow writing articles like this, I doubt the attention that women in sports will receive will be anything that resembles fair.

Bridget Pettis made this rather poignant comment:

"It will be great when we don't have to recognize it," with regards to women in sports.

How true. If only this columnist could emulate the wisdom of those he interviews. I believe that would be quite fair.

On January 31st, Diana Taurasi made it clear in an AP interview, posted on ESPN.Com, that she never took the substance that she tested positive for in Turkey.

"There's no way I've ever taken anything," she told The Associated Press by telephone Sunday night from her parents' home in Chino, Calif.

So now, the wait begins. There has been no punishment handed down from the Turkish league as of today and Taurasi has already stated she plans to appeal. The process could take until the end of 2011. That's quite a long time, for Taurasi, and for fans, to wait.

However, something has intrigued me more; the response to the allegations of her taking a PED. (performance enhancing drug) Since this news broke some time ago, there have been the usual suspects; the doubters, the haters, and the supporters. But what has intrigued me more are the arguments, particularly the ones that support her being guilty.

Let me get one thing out of the way first. Those of you who know me, know I'm a Taurasi fan. So yes, I'm biased. And yes, I believe her. (after all, we Taurasi fans are, what do they say, Batshit Insane?) Now, after you've put that in your pipe and smoked it...

If you peruse the comments of the article above, you will notice that in between the supporters, that there are a greater number of people who, as it seems, take great joy in announcing their beliefs that Diana is guilty of the allegations, period. Now, I firmly believe everyone has the right to their opinions; such as the beauty of living in a country such as ours. It is, however, the arguments these people use that support their beliefs that I just cannot wrap my head around. (One ESPN member by the name of msmoniker went so far as to use 3 separate posts to weigh in on the issue) So, rather than reprint/analyze each one, I've categorized them for your convenience.

1) Diana hired the same attorney that other athletes in the same situation hired, therefore she's guilty. (or) The attorney Diana hired has had a great deal of clients who were guilty, therefore she is too.

So, Diana is in the wrong for hiring one of the few attorneys that has experience in this kind of matter? In this day and age, when you are accused of anything at this level, and you have no legal representation, you are simply chum waiting for the sharks. I am by no means a fan of lawyers, but if my career was on the line and I believed I was innocent, not to mention I had the resources to hire the best help, I damn well would.

2) It doesn't matter what background the lab has, nor it's reputation, it's accredited now and that is all that matters.

Would you take your car to a mechanic that previously was found negligent of repairs as opposed to one that wasn't? Go to a restaurant that was previously fined by the local board of health as opposed to one that has a clean record? These things do not prove that these establishments should be shut down, but to go through a period improvements to begin anew. However, it still creates a sense of doubt, especially in my mind. Not to mention the lab hasn't come forth with a lot of effort trying to prove otherwise. Not saying they are automatically in the wrong, but their reputation gives me reason to doubt the accuracy of their tests, and believe Taurasi.

3) She took too long to deny the allegations, so she has to be guilty.

When these allegations surfaced, it was still unclear if and what was going to happen. She was still in Turkey and just trying to figure out what happened.

"I had never heard of it and couldn't pronounce it," Taurasi said. "I had to Google it to find out the side effects. I never have come in contact with it."

It is always a good idea to figure out the situation you are in before you start making statements. She has always been a smart player, on and off the court. The timing of one's statements do not necessarily indicate the validity of them.

4) There is a long list of athletes who denied using PED's, then admitted guilt. She must be one of them.

Guilt by association? Really, I'm not going to even comment on how invalid this is.

5) There is a clear outlined procedure for drug tests to avoid human error, so she must be guilty.

Really? Unless you are the lab manager of that exact lab in Turkey, and you personally developed and put into place the "procedure" you speak of, then I can see your point. If not, you have no proof that the procedure in question was accurately followed. There is absolutely no procedure that can be implemented to eliminate human error.

Again, everyone has the right to their own opinions. You can believe Taurasi, or not. I believe her. And until she says otherwise, I stand by my decision to do so.

For those of you arguing as to why she's guilty, consider this - if you were wrongfully accused of something and people were using these arguments to implicate your guilt, how would you feel?

Put the shoe on the other foot people.

The following was posted by Gökhan Senoglu in the discussion section on Diana Taurasi's official facebook page. You cannot deny that in the wake of the allegations against Taurasi, that the support has been overwhelming to say the least. Some people call it blind faith - I call it believing in someone.


WADA (headquarters)
Fax : +1 514 904 8650
WADA(Europe)
Fax: +41 21 343 43 41

info@wada-ama.org
tbf@tbf.org.tr

Send this letter to World Anti Doping Agency and help Diana Taurasi


08/01/2011

To whom it may concern‚
As a group of avid basketball fans that truly believe in the integrity‚ ethics and fairplay‚ we would like to bring to your attention the events unfolded around Diana Taurasis alleged use of a banned substance.

On or about December 23‚ 2010‚ we learned that the Fenerbahce Basketball player Diana Taurasis' A sample‚ taken after a regular league game against ISTANBUL University contained a banned substance. Apparently‚ the news leaked and Taurasis right to confidentiality as a result was breached.
On December 28‚ 2010‚ only 5 days the news was leaked‚ the head of Turkish Football Federation Anti-Doping Organization and the Chairman of Turkish Basketball Federation Health Department‚ Prof. Dr. Turgay Atasu‚ went on various media outlets and declared that he was confident Taurasis B sample was also positive and she should be banned 2 years. Dr. Atasu clearly violated Taurasis fundamental right to presumed innocence and rendered the process of analyzing the B sample a mere formality.

Please note that when Dr Atasu was drawing his conclusions when Taurasis B sample was not even opened and clearly he was formulating public opinion that Taurasi was guilty of doping and she should be punished. He further went on and said he was in favor of exposing cheaters as soon as there is some evidence of wrongdoing. His total disregard of due process and confidentiality of results is self evident in his widely published remarks.

Dr Atasu is a public official in a position of authority in doping matters and he is also head of a health committee with the Turkish Basketball Federation that is responsible from receiving and evaluating the test results. His comments published in all major news outlets are outrageous‚ unacceptable and in clear and irrefutable violation of WADA Code Article 14.2.5.

Furthermore‚ in the last few months there are at least 5 other athletes accused of doping using the same banned substance‚ modafinil. After 2‚5 years of no reported doping cases how can one logically explain the sudden explosion of Modafinil in 5 other athletes within a very short time?. Given the tarnished history of Hacettepe University Doping Control Center and their suspension in 2009‚ this raises very serious concerns about the integrity of their testing procedures and the results.

While we are in favor of punishing those who cheated to gain a competitive advantage‚ we are also a strong advocates of fair testing done in a professional manner adhering to the highest procedural and ethical standards. Unfortunately in Taurasis case it is clearly impossible to talk about such standard. Dr. Atasus comments coupled with this labs questionable history and practices raise significant concerns and questions that are yet to be answered.!

Based on these facts we kindly request (or to be informed of):

-Immediate suspension of Hacettepe University Turkish Doping Control Center.
-A thorough investigation of Dr. Turgay Atasus public comments to understand how he was sure that Taurasis B sample was positive before it was even analyzed?
-Was he in contact with the lab personnel?
-Did he influence the testing process to determine the outcome?
-A complete review of the Labs procedures‚ analysis techniques and instruments in light of all positive cases for the same substance that occurred in a very short period of time.
-Most importantly a retest of Taurasis both A and B samples in another accredited laboratory to alleviate significant doubts and concerns about the integrity of the results .

Sincerely‚
NAME SURNAME

**contact information is posted above.

By now many of you have heard the news - Diana Taurasi tests positive for a "banned substance" by a Turkish lab and has been suspended by the Turkish league.

What exactly was the "banned substance" in question? Well, Forbes Magazine (Forbes, really?) reported that the Turkish Basketball Federation claims the tests were positive for Modafinil, a prescription medication (known as Provigil) used to counter excessive sleepiness due to narcolepsy, shift work sleep disorder or sleep apnea. However, neither Fenerbahce nor Taurasi's lawyer would validate that claim.

I, however, am more concerned about how this has been handled. 1.) Labs who conduct these kinds of drug screenings have to follow strict guidelines about reporting results - this lab obviously didn't. 2.) The lab in question, that tested Taurasi's sample, also has a questionable history - yet the only Ben York has had the good sense to report it. Other media outlets have not mentioned it, but they did mention 3.) Taurasi's DUI history - something that has absolutely no relation to the situation Taurasi is going though. Bottom line - No matter what the outcome, Taurasi does not deserve to be treated like this.

Too many things just don't make sense. One fact in particular; as Ben and Taurasi's lawyer have pointed out, Taurasi has undergone screenings like this for the NCAA, WNBA, and the Olympic team and has NEVER, I repeat, NEVER failed or even been suspected of using any kind of banned substance.

Why now? It just doesn't make sense.

My concern? That Taurasi has a legitimate medical condition that she did not want made public. Sleep disorders are no joke as I have several friends who suffer from them. It makes sense to me why she would take it - playing year round, and the constant travel - it has to take it's toll on your sleep patterns. No, I have no way to validate this, just a concern.

Again, I am not a doctor, and it has not been confirmed what was found in the screening. Persoanlly, I'm pullin' for Diana. Yeah, if what I think turns out not to be true, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

Ben York's article (Click here)
Forbes Magazine article (Click here)

I really can't be surprised anymore.

I used to get so upset when I read negative content about the WNBA be it editorial or blog post. I mean really, how could these people (both men and women have written condescending content) spew such hateful ideals?

Yes, I used the term hateful.

I use that term because to waste words with an completely invalid argument to paint a negative picture of something (in this case the WNBA) that the author doesn’t particularly care for is hateful. It serves no other purpose.

Today was no different, as I read Jeff Pearlman’s column entitled, Why the WNBA isn’t---and will never be---a Popular League.

Just once, just once I would like to read a valid, sound argument as to why the WNBA is not great, or why it will not succeed. Then, maybe, we could get a dialogue going and engage in a meaningful discussion. But alas, I’ve yet to see it happen.

Let’s not begin on why Mr. Pearlman wrote the article. For whatever reason, he chose today to unleash his animosity toward women’s professional basketball. We’ll get back to that.

I want to first take a look at Mr. Pearlman’s argument as to why the WNBA will never succeed…and I use the term “argument” lightly, as it is quite possibly one of the weakest ones I have ever read.

He begins by making several comparisons to prove things that are impossible, in order to support how impossible it is for the WNBA to experience any type of success. Unfortunately, he goes about it all wrong. He states how inanimate objects as well as animals and even his late grandmother will never have certain characteristics. For example – “I can present 1,000 pounds of the world's most delicious Swiss chocolate to my sofa, and it will never take a bite.”
Correct.

Because couches do not eat. He continues.

“Dogs don't speak fluent Spanish. Penguins don't enjoy Mahjong. My late grandmother can no longer bake cookies and my cell phone refuses to walk to the refrigerator and grab me a Yoo-hoo (Trust me, I've asked).”

Dogs do not have the vocal ability to produce a spoken human language. Penguins do not have the intellectual ability to comprehend a patterned, rule governed game. Dead people do not come back from the dead, and cell phones do not walk.

Here is the problem with his comparisons. It’s not that the characteristics he states can’t happen, they don’t happen, and never will happen. It’s not that those things are impossible; they have never existed. A couch is an inanimate object with no human qualities. It is and never will be possible for it to eat anything. Bottom line: in order for impossible to be proven, there has to be some theory that there is potential for something to happen or not happen. To state something that does not exist to prove it’s impossible invalidates his point.

Strike one.

Then, there is the sweeping generalizations, or as I like to call them, because I put it in print, it has to be true. Example? “Because nobody watches the WNBA. Nobody discusses the WNBA. Nobody seems especially interested in the WNBA.”

Nobody. Really? Nobody is defined as: No person; not anyone. So, a league that has existed for 14 years, has existed on absolutely zero fan support, not one ticket has been sold, and not one person has ever tuned in. There is no place like the Rebkell forums where fans discuss the league at length. Yeah, I’m reaching here, but only to make a point. While it might not compare to the numbers of the NBA, to make the generalization that “Nobody” is interested in the WNBA without a shred of evidence makes the argument to prove that weaker than wet noodles.

Strike two.

Oh, and I was waiting for this last part. The inevitable comparison, between the WNBA and the NBA. Yes, it is quite fair to compare a 60 plus year old, 30 team league with a 14 year, and 12 team league. Well established vs. new and growing.

Nope, sorry, can’t do it.

Comparing these two is like, well, like trying to get a sofa to eat chocolate.

But then Mr. Pearlman gets down to player comparisons.

“Here's no solution to this problem, no magical cure just waiting to be unleashed. Sue Bird will never be Deron Williams and Tamika Catchings will never be Carmelo Anthony.”

First of all, what’s the problem? And what magical cure is needed? Is Mr. Pearlman saying the WNBA not being able to succeed is a problem? To state something is a problem would imply that the person stating that would have a minimal amount of concern invested in that statement.

After reading Mr. Pearlman’s article, he obviously could care less; just look at the closing line to his article.

“Yawn”

And I will say this; with regards to WNBA players being NBA players, he is right. But allow me to clarify – Sue Bird will be Sue Bird. Tamika Catchings will be Tamika Catchings. Not once have I ever head a WNBA fan say, “I wish Diana Taurasi was more like Kobe Bryant.” WNBA athletes have only wanted to be respected for who they are, not who they could be. Their fans wouldn’t have it any other way.

I know, I talked to them in 13 different cities.

Sue Bird and Tamika Catchings are two of the best athletes (no, not just female athletes) in the world. Mr. Pearlman might know that if he cared enough to research some info on those players. However, as it has been shown, Mr. Pearlman lacks in the caring dept.

To compare apples to oranges (WNBA to NBA) is to say that men and women exist in a homogeneous grouping, genetically, physically, and cognitively. We know this not to be true. Does this make one better than the other? Absolutely not. Even though the argument between the genders has raged on for centuries, and I doubt it will stop any time soon. However, for Mr. Pearlman’s point, and his use of it, proves little, and validates less.

Strike three.

To review: The WNBA will not be successful because inanimate objects do not have human characteristics, there is not one person on the planet who has ever heard of the WNBA and women will never be men. An argument, empty, invalid, and void of anything concrete.

Did I miss anything?

So, now the inevitable question. Why? If the WNBA will indeed never succeed, why do professional writers, like Mr. Pearlman, continue to write such things? One would think if they were one of those who doesn’t care about the WNBA, (becasue nobody does) they would not even write about it, because, well, they (should have) no idea it exists.

I have one theory, and it might sound a bit far fetched, but stay with me.

The Answer? Fear. Fear of the unfamiliar.

When a guy like Pearlman sees a female athlete in the same place (i.e. the basketball court) previously occupied by their male counterparts, childhood sports heroes, or person of worship, there is a sense of fear being felt. Fear that a woman could actually compete and possess skills at a level only held by men for so long. What else could possibly motivate a professional writer to write about something that supposedly they care nothing about, and have no interest in? Money? No, there are plenty of sports out there to cover. Fame? Write about something that they admit no one cares about?

Nope.

Only one thing I can think of, knee-jerk fear, leading to irrational thinking, and thus taking the form of negative content in an attempt to disguise their prejudices as legitimate sports writing.

Take a look at how they compare WNBA players to NBA players.

“Sue Bird will never be Deron Williams” In other words, men will never be women. This is something I have found consistently in every hate-laden article and blog post, negatively criticizing the WNBA. It’s a mantra that is written over and over again, as if it is written enough times, they will never have to accept that a woman could ever be a professional athlete. Kind of the equivalent of a 5 year old sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming, “LA LA LA LA LA LA, I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!” It’s comical, and at best, immature for so called professionals to do.

In the end, guys like Pearlman will never go away. Sad really. Even as Pearlman admits he likes the WNBA, he still feels compelled to write such things.

I only have one question; Why would you tear down what you like? Makes no sense. Then again, his entire column didn’t either.