In such a densely imbricated post as that, I'm having a hard time discerning just which claim provoked your response, dear Tim.
I want to know if there is any correlation between your pro-feminist postings and the frequency with which you actually see the ex-. Not that I doubt your basically feminist commitments (seriously). Nor do I doubt the sincerity of the individual posts of late (this and the mommy blog post, off the top of my head). But I wonder if they also serve another, deeper, perhaps unconscious need: the invent-a-child-to-join-S.P.A.T. need.
Although, I suppose I could be projecting.
Oh man, I guess you don't live in Connecticut. If you did, you'd realize that women's basketball is real basketball, and a thing of beauty too. You'd even refrain from ironic tongue-in-cheek disparagements of it, out of a deep and abiding respect for the greatness of women's basketball. Go Huskies!
Tim, you're projecting. The ex has moved away; I don't see her anymore.
What's S.P.A.T.?
Tad, tongue-in-cheek nothing; I can't watch women's basketball. Alternatively, I can watch women's, but not men's, soccer.
Ogged:
That the ex- has moved forms the basis for my claim; you're now on the market, and are plumping your Good Decent Dem Guy plummage. The SPAT (Single Parents Alone Together) thing was a reference to About a Boy.
Women's basketball is unwatchable. Women's soccer is slightly less watchable than men's soccer, but most men's soccer is so unwatchable that they might as well be treated as equivalent goods. Women's tennis, however, is vastly superior to men's tennis from a spectator standpoint.
I take the occasion of a post about female pundits to slam women's basketball and you think that's pandering? What are you, a Southern Baptist?
"Plumage."
I still kinda like women's soccer, but agreed on tennis (not that I ever watch any kind of tennis). I'd watch more if the tennis hotties were a bit older than sixteen. But seriously, men's tennis used to be great to watch, but...curmudgeon curmudgeon...the new rackets...curmudgeon....
You know, I should really ask the exes what they think about my decent dem / feminist cred. Though I don't think they think in those terms...betcha they say they don't know what I mean...
You and w-lfs-n are going to make the rest of us completely neurotic. It's a blog, for heaven's sake. Are you tryeing to driive me maad??
Oh man, I guess you don't live in Connecticut. If you did, you'd realize that women's basketball is real basketball, and a thing of beauty too.
This was my thought also.
What's the problem with women's basketball?
But then again, who'd want to live in Connecticut?
Ogged in 7: don't be so quick with that correction. Now that you're single, it might be worthwhile to appear rich and mellow or aristocratic and upper class; "plummage" being an index of how plummy one is.
Rich and mellow..."often to the point of affectation."
Or plum colored.
I say again: plumage.
Tim, the ex says, "who wants to date a feminist man?"
She also points out that I'm not getting anywhere on Decent Dem cred after the bloodlust episode.
Given that she's the ex-, does that mean she does consider you a feminist?
And did she say that in order to say that she thinks you are, or are not, feminist?
You know, I've always assumed that w-lfs-n's OCD re: grammar and spelling related to his deep and soon-to-be-professional interest in philosophy, which seems reasonable if a bit over the top. But you decided to leave that track; shouldn't you be more mellow about word choice?
It would be a wonderful joke if I'd been dumped for being too feminist. No, she doesn't think that.
Joe, a few times a week, I think.
I'm generally pretty lax about the words and grammar but you were attacking me, as is your wont, so I wasn't going to let it slide. And I didn't know if it was a typo or a real error so I thought, in the spirit of friendship, that I'd point it out, lest you repeat it among less friendly interlocutors.
'Unwatchable?'
Just curious, but which women's games have you seen lately? (And this must not include any you just flipped upon, realized what it was, and went 'bah!' before turning the channel.) Admittedly, I wasn't a fan back when I was in college but the women's game has evolved tremendously over the last 15 years - it's gotten faster, better and more exciting - which just figures as more girls get into sports and have more role models. Thank you Williams Sisters and Mia Hamm. Thank you Lisa Leslie.
But hey, I'll admit it- I don't always love the women's game. It's slower and lower, which cut against it, but it's often as fast as the men's game, and is more teamwork-oriented.
But I'm wondering, is it only because it's slow and dunk-less that people don't watch women's basketball? (And I know I'm generalizing here but I never hear a woman level a charge like 'unwatchable' at women's basketball and have heard plenty of men say it lately.)
Or is there another reason that people don't watch?
Because - now hear me out - I've got a theory: basketball, in all its physicality, puts women in a role that men - and some women - are not comfortable seeing women in.
Basketball is a contact sport, and while playing it women don't look pretty. There are no cute revealing outfits a la tennis, which is - let's face it - one of the few women's sports which men watch en masse. Instead, the women wear shorts as baggy as the men's, and have their hair in thug braids and wear mouthguards - just like the men. And the play can be brutal - last night Minnesota's 6'4" Janel McCarville set a pick at midcourt that LEVELED Virginia's LaTonya Blue, knocking the wind out of her and clearing a lane for Broback to score.
Ladylike? Hardly. Watchable? Eminently.
Then again, maybe people just really need to see dunks.
Huh. Somehow I missed #15. I think she's overselling the effect of the "Where's My Nailgun" post. I think you could sell it as simply evidence that you're "complicated." Women seem to like "complicated"; I've seen actual sins (vs. your musings) swept under that rug.
Moira, I like to watch sports to see people do amazing things with their bodies. Women's basketball bores me in the same way the Princeton men bore me. The team game is great, but I only really enjoy watching it when it's coupled with amazing athleticism.
You should watch this year's women's teams from UNC (#1 seed, I might add). Not boring.
And I think that means dunking. Hard to show off graceful athleticism without the aspect of flight, I think, when we've become so accustomed to it. (Thank you Michael Jordan.)
Moira:
basketball, in all its physicality, puts women in a role that men - and some women - are not comfortable seeing women in
If I still had rights to the blogcrush on you, I'd (of course) agree with you completely. But since you didn't, I'll go with my actual answer: I personally don't like watching women's basketball for roughly the same reason I don't like watch 5 year olds play soccer: it's slow, it's boring, it's graceless, and I'd only be there b/c I felt an obligation. Increasingly, I find college basketball unwatchable for roughly the same reason. I hated Knicks basketball (recently afflicting much of the NBA) for the same reason.
I don't buy the "we don't like women in contact sports" argument. Soccer is a contact sport in roughly the way that basketball is, and it's better. Women's lax is an actual contact sport, and it's leagues better than men's lax, largely b/c it's substantially more graceful.
There are power sports and there are grace sports, and basketball is (except in rare cases, like a young Shawn Kemp) a grace sport. Where men can go to power (tennis, lax) in a graceful game, I prefer the women's game; I wouldn't be shocked if I would like women's ice hockey more for that reason.
Interesting. Most women's basketball is indeed boring for the same reason that Princeton men's team (and every soccer team) is boring - it's a very deliberate possession game. The elite women's programs, however, are mostly playing an up and down game. UNC, for example, scored 97 points in their first round game on Sunday.
The oddest women's sport is boxing, precisely because most of the boxers have very little training and, hence, almost no defense. Also, the chances of one boxer being entirely better than the other is much greater than in men's boxing. So, it isn't pretty boxing by any stretch, but it tends to be pretty spectacular if you came looking for an ass-kicking.
And I think that means dunking.
Not really. Flight is one part of it (though the well-time block and turnaround fall-away are more impressive than the dunk), but quickness and agility are more what I mean. It's impossible for me to not judge women's basketball against the men's game, so it just seems, like Tim says, slow and graceless.
Apo -
Ya know, I could actually see really liking women's boxing. Boxing is weird b/c it really can be the most extraordinary display of power (Tyson v. Spinks) or grace (Roy Jones, Jr., before he got dropped). Strangely, I think I might be offended in the way Moira's talking about if women boxer's were too graceful (that's a guess, though).
Moira:
I agree with Ogged. The dunk has little (if anything) to do with it. More than anything, I think it's the speed. In the men's game, a great pass is one I know I would never, ever see if I were playing. In the women's game, b/c it's slower, I feel like I would still miss the opportunity for the pass, but I'd get the tingling feeling about making the pass most of the time.
Oh, and, with apologies to you, Moira, my biggest lesbian crush is on a rugby/field hockey playing woman who has the Best Body Ever, so no, I don't think I'm put off by smashmouth girls.
I thought what made a lot of women's college basketball boring was the disparity between the top teams and the middle and lower ones. Games decided by 20 - and sometimes 40 or more - points just aren't that exciting.
I've always found the games between the top teams to be pretty high-quality, though.
Oh, and if you're looking for feminist credentials, maybe you could argue that the ABL (was that what it was called?) was better than the WNBA because it was an independent league playing during the normal basketball season.
Meh, I don't even much care if games are competitive. I really do watch to see the athleticism, so I'm perfectly happy to watch a blowout if there are one or two players on the floor who move beautifully.
Ogged going with the homoerotic defense for his preference, and shoring up his Dem/Lib credentials nicely.
Let me chime in defending womens' basketball. At the high levels, it's a great game to watch. Diani Taurasi's UConn teams were compelling.
It's just a *different* spectator from the men's game because taking somone off the dribble is very, very rare. The zone-filled NBA has gotten more like this, as several people have noted. I like the dribble (ahem) penetration game, so I like the NBA more than NCAA-W. But given how rare dribble penetration is in NCAA-M, many hard core NBA fans like that less too.
Can we morph this into an NBA-thread? Ogged, you follow the league, correct? I will back the Celtics into the second round of the playoffs against all comers...
baa, I don't follow the league so much actually. I used to have League Pass, and I think that cured me. You can only watch indifferent regular season players for so long. But I'm looking at Boston's roster now, and sure, they have a nice mix, the second round is a possibility. Then, either Payton or Walker will lose his mind and make sure they go no further. How are their big men?
Bad. Raef Lafrentz (sp?) and Mark Blount. Shaq would murdricate them, as (one suspects) would Rasheed Wallace. Any other East team and I like the C's chances. And Detroit has looked very mortal of late.
I will hold my impassioned defence of Antoine Walker for another time.
I know Lafentz's game, but I was wondering about Blount. Ok, just looked at his picture, I've seen him play. Yeah, nothing inside.
Antoine Walker has wonderful basketball skills. And no brain. (But I haven't seen him play this year. Maybe he's accepted being a second option.)
No brain? Why! I! But!
Ok, here's what I think is fair. Antoine has a marvellous tactical basketball intelligence. In his previous Boston stint, however, he did not display a similar grasp of strategic thinking. All those 3s is one example people give, but I think a better case would be found in his constantly posting up and getting stuffed by Kenyon Martin in the Nets series. So far in his second Celtics stint, he's been playing deeply under control. Check this out: 50% from the floor in the month of March!
Yeah, that's fair. Those stats are pretty revealing. FG% up, steals and block way up, and minutes down. To me, that indicates that he was playing tired before. He never has looked to be in fantastic shape.
And I think playing for a team where everyone else sucks (Atlanta! Where have you gone, Kevin Willis?) also has a debilitating effect.
Antoine has a marvellous tactical basketball intelligence. In his previous Boston stint, however, he did not display a similar grasp of strategic thinking.
What? If I understand this correctly, you're saying that 'Toine is great at achieving short term goals, but unclear about how to achieve long-term goals (or unclear about what those goals should be). But the persistent claim about Antoine has been that he takes stupid shots, makes bad passes, etc. That is, he has very bad fine-grained judgment about basketball. If anything, I think you could say exactly the opposite: he knows that the point is to win (strategy) but has no idea that his reckless shooting does not help the team advance towards that goal (tactic).
And I think the Cs beat the Cavs but lose to the Bulls in the first round; matchups are key.
The Bulls?! I will put money against that at your pleasure, SCMT.
As to the Walker point, I meant something a bit different. I contend that Walker is a a smart player in that he does things that smart players do: he's an excellent passer, has good court vision, rebounds well above his size (good positional rebounding -- classic "smart player" skill), and, again, despite limited physical gifts, has a knack for the key defensive play.
So in all these little things, he's smart. What, in the past, has *not* been smart about his game is his tendency to dominate the ball on the offensive end. That's a higher level error. Given that he spent his early career on simply dreadful Celtic teams, you can understand where he developed these bad habits. In the past ten games for the Celtics , he's playing, if I may be excused the cliche, "within himself" on offense. If he keeps that up, he's a fantastic player.
I guess you got my impassioned Walker defense after all.
I guess you got my impassioned Walker defense after all.
Some things, like panty-blogging, are inevitable. For what it's worth, I agree with baa about Walker. Though I'd say he's a wily, or clever, rather than smart player.
I don't think the Bulls will beat the Celtics.
All the little things you both are talking about used to go by the name "fundamentals," and I treat them as substantially closer to pure expressions of muscle memory than decision-making (excluding passing). And it sounds like what you mean, baa, is that Walker's decision making has been improved by his realization that he shouldn't be in the position to make as many decisions. For a player of his caliber and experience, that's a left-handed improvement at best.
I yield to no one in my visceral dislike of the Celtics, but ...I'd think that ogged had a pretty serious dislike of them as well, and his vote makes me want to watch a little WGN before I commit to the Bulls. It is hard for me to believe, however, that a team starting a knucklehead (Walker), an overrated whiner (Pierce), and a crazy old man (Payton) won't blow up sometime.
Oh, SCMT, if only you had watched Walker evolve, as I did, you would not speak of him so scornfully.
And I will be deelighted to cover any bet you wish to put on the Celtics first round opponent, sight unseen.
Also, in addition to the Celtics, do you hate America? Justice? Are you feeding Kryptonite to superboy? Do you sport a balding pate and employ a secretary by the name of Kitty Koslowski? Because I am trying to put the pieces together here.
in addition to the Celtics, do you hate America? Justice?
Come now. Rooting for the white dudes against the black dudes (at least when we were all growing up, I think it might be ok again now), was just a sign of bad character. (Not insuperably bad, baa!)
Wow, baa. You voted for Bush, root for the Celtics, and chose the ubermench with the scary insignia on his chest over a symbol of the entrepreneurial engine of America, Lex Luthor. Let me guess...you're a Duke fan.
No team in NBA history was as ugly as the mid-80s Celtics. That's what I hold against them; either you love Beauty or you don't.
Wow, baa, that's a pretty daring bet, taking the 3 seed straight up against the 6 seed. What's next? Taking the Yankees and Red Sox against the field in the AL East?
Some points:
I rooted for Clubber Lang against Rocky, does this count for nothing?
I hate Duke.
Dennis Johnson, now there's a good looking guy!
Also, Adb, the records are very close. 6th seed may get home court...
I hate Duke.
As well you should. Go Heels!
Hate Duke? Check. (More importantly, recognize inherent appropriateness in using Duke-hatred as moral measure? Check.) Rooted for Lang? Check. Acknowledge ugliness of Celtics? Check. Quote PE? Check. How can you possibly be a Republican? Was it a lost bet? Is your income so high that the relatively modest change in marginal tax rates would take such a substantial bite? You'll make it up in lower interest rates. I just don't understand.
Here's a question. When has sports loathing gone too far? For example, you know when that drunk Duke student fell in to the celebratory bonfire? That seemed kinda funny to me at the time. Now I recognize that an impartial observer might consider that response inhumane.
SCMT -- serious answer to a partly unserious question. Though highly ideological, I am not a party man. Issues that incline me towards the GOP include: foreign policy, greater support for market-friendly solutions, and the courts. A more considered discussion can be found here
Fair enough, but you should probably move "Will bust the budget to pander to the elderly" from the left to the right, given Bush's prescription drug benefit.
Quote PE? Check. How can you possibly be a Republican?
I got a letter from the government
The other day. I opened and read it,
It said they were reducing my marginal tax rate by 3% and reining in activist judges.
baa-
Thanks a lot for the list. Very cool. What's funny about it is that I could probably have written much of it myself. (E.g., I'm not crazy about Dem policy on education, and we are sometimes inclined not to make distinctions necessary to make certain welfare policies work). For a long time, I could probably have as easily described myself as a moderate Republican. In fact, I have long said that I can think of more moderate Republicans that I'd like to see as presidential candidates than Dems (I have a weird obsession for Weld, for example).
But I look at your party, and the moderates clearly lack the whip hand. (Whatever else you might say about him, Dean is fairly moderate.) And that's what scares me, and makes me wonder at the Reasonable Republican support for Bush, etc. I can't help wondering if the moderate party figures in the Republican party made the "we can control him" calculation, and just guessed wrong. And where does that leave them?
What would it take to get you (or, at a guess, people like you) to vote Dem? The Clinton era, after all, doesn't look that different from plans GHWB might have made (particularly if he didn't have to commit to the Right). Is there one (or two, etc) policies Dems would have to change? Is there some foreseeable action(s) GWB, etc., could make that would drive you out of the party?
I cannot, for the life of me, understand how the deal struck in the 90s came apart so quickly.
Err, also apologize for the post, in a sense. You must get deluged with these sorts of arguments whenever the earnestness of a Dem you know kicks up.
>What would it take to get you (or, at a guess, people like you) to vote Dem?
I am really the wrong person to answer this, as I am not strongly party-identified, and vote Dem all the time at the state level. If you're asking a "why did Kerry lose" question, I think the answer is a) because people felt the economy was doing basically fine, and b) because no one trusted Kerry/democrats on foreign policy.
If you're asking the "why have the dems become a minority party" question, that's a great question I do not have a good answer to.