by Eric Martin
Money Mark Leon Goldberg finds a repugnant example of sexism.
Take a look at this list of finalists for the Associated Press Female Athlete of the Year. (The numbers represent the number of votes they received.)
Serena Williams 66
Zenyatta 18
Kim Clijsters 16
Lindsey Vonn 15
Diana Taurasi 14
Maya Moore 13
Rachel Alexandra 10
Bridget Sloan 3
Jiyai Shin 2
Erin Hamlin 1
First things first, congratulations to tennis great Serena Williams for winning top honors. But upon closer inspection you may notice that two of the athletes listed are not human beings. Zenyatta and Rachel Alexandra, in fact, are horses. That's right. We live in a world in which animals are eligable to win "Female Athlete of the Year" from one of the most important global news agencies. That's some shameful stuff.
That's just gob-smackingly ignorant coming from such a media entity.
[UPDATE: Perhaps I'm overreacting? As some commenters have pointed out, non-humans have been recognized on best athlete lists in the past, so perhaps this is much ado about nothing. I, of course, blame Mark Leon Goldberg and will never forgive him, ever ;)]
That’s not exactly unprecedented though. Secretariat was actually Sports Illustrated’s Athlete of the Year in 1973. I’m not sure how many other male horses have gotten votes, although I’m pretty sure Affirmed, Seattle Slew, Smarty Jones, and Barbaro all have, and it might be ridiculous, but horses winning Athlete of the Year votes is very normal, at least for male horses.
Brien beat me to it. The main difference with horses is that females are routinely competitive with the best of their male counterparts.
And two more things.
1. Mark Leon Goldberg seems to think human beings are not animals. That’s an objectively asinine position, and in my view it’s morally vacuous.
2. Animals have always been admired for their athletic ability. This is why (among other things) most sports teams at all levels are named after animals.
Both Martin and Goldberg might want to re-think a few things here. These posts are just embarrassing.
Eric – what makes you think male horses haven’t received votes for male athlete of the year?
I suppose now is a good time to withdraw my male “athlete of the year award” from Tiger’s penis, for getting so many hole in ones.
:-p
But yeah, this looks more like bad journalism critiquing and poor research. The least these guys could have done is fact-checked their claims for a second or two.
I’d be more concerned that it seems like the award almost always goes to an American.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press_Athlete_of_the_Year
Eric – what makes you think male horses haven’t received votes for male athlete of the year?
Well, the males probably won (unmodified) athlete of the year. That’s the real problem, not the horses.
Eric – what makes you think male horses haven’t received votes for male athlete of the year?
None did this year. The votes are available at the link.
Secretariat was actually Sports Illustrated’s Athlete of the Year in 1973.
I know this, but do they get votes in gender specific categories?
If my research is bad, point it out. I’m not infallible by any strained and stretched conception of the word.
What Eric means is that if a female athlete is competitive with male athletes, then she should be lumped with the males.
In other words, Eric believes that female-specific lists must exclude athletes who are in absolute terms the best in the world.
“I know this, but do they get votes in gender specific categories?”
I can’t find any archived information on vote distribution for previous years, but I would bet that Barbaro got votes in 2006 and I’m almost certain Smarty Jones got votes as well.
What Eric means is that if a female athlete is competitive with male athletes, then she should be lumped with the males.
Huh? No, I was asking if it was customary to list horses on male athlete categories.
What I “meant” was that if the only time horses are listed is on women-specific or gender-neutral lists, then it would appear odd.
However, that doesn’t mean what you said it meant. In fact, there’s no connection at all. I’m not saying that I want to see female horses on “male athlete of the year” lists after all.
I can’t find any archived information on vote distribution for previous years, but I would bet that Barbaro got votes in 2006 and I’m almost certain Smarty Jones got votes as well.
If that’s the case, I stand corrected. If not, my objections remain (although perhaps not as harshly worded).
What I “meant” was that if the only time horses are listed is on women-specific or gender-neutral lists, then it would appear odd.
But what if there’s a much smaller number of male-specific lists? The lists tend to be gender-neutral (mostly male by default, which is probably the real issue)or female-specific.
HSH: I think the lists used to be predominately gender neutral, but not so much anymore.
What I’m really saying, Eric, is that I don’t think you have a coherent position at all, that the original post and your approval of it are ridiculous and misguided attempts to see pernicious sexism where it’s not really there, and that you clearly haven’t the slightest clue about horses or how human beings relate to them.
If I were you I’d shut the thread down. First rule of holes, and all that.
“HSH: I think the lists used to be predominately gender neutral, but not so much anymore.”
The AP has done a Male Athlete and Female Athlete list since 1930 something.
I can’t find any historical records on the vote distribution, only winners, but I would imagine that if nothing else, if Secretariat could get enough votes to win SI’s Sportsman of the Year award, surely he got at least some votes from the AP.
Now that’s not to say that the broader point about sexism and female athletics vis-a-vis the sports media isn’t generally true.
Spiny:
It is quite possible that I overreacted and that there is no sexism represented by the vote. I have acknowledged that on this thread, and I have no problem reiterating that.
As for the humans and horses thing, that’s kind of a a weird non-sequitur. Maybe you’re addressing Mark and not me? I, for one, have no problem recognizing the athletic ability of non-humans. My focus was on the apparent gender-specific quality (to the extent I believed it existed).
Regardless, your comment purporting to read my mind was still odd and I most definitely reserve the right to rebut strange accusations even where my original post was misguided.
I won’t shut the thread down because mistakes should not be erased like that on blogs. Everybody makes em, so let em lie where they are.
Eh, doesn’t look like Barbaro got any votes in 2006, per lexis, couldn’t find a vote breakdown for 2004 to see if Smarty Jones got any votes.
if Secretariat could get enough votes to win SI’s Sportsman of the Year award, surely he got at least some votes from the AP.
Again, this seems quite plausible, and if that’s the case, then I stand corrected.
2. Animals have always been admired for their athletic ability. This is why (among other things) most sports teams at all levels are named after animals.
Actually, for the record:
17 out of 32 NFL teams
21 out of 30 MLB teams
22 out of 30 NHL teams
22 out of 30 NBA teams
. . . are not named after animals, so I can’t imagine where you think you’re getting this idea from.
Are no women commenting…if not here I am. Yes it is sexist or at least mind numbingly dumb. Sorry to hurt anyone’s feelings. So these horses won some races…that hasn’t happened before with male horses?
For it to not be dumb and sexist, has there been a horse voted in the male category each year there was a lot of excitment about a winning horse? Go to http://www.horse-races.net/library/tcrown-info.htm to check out big winners since 1900.
Now come back and tell me when these (mostly) male horses came up as ‘athlete of the year’. Let’s just concentrate on the past 40 years. Hmmmm. Secretariat was a Triple Crown winner (and happened to be the last one so far), so yeah he would deserve it.
Essentially the implication is that they cannot find 10 women athletes that are “worthy”…
Eric has it spot on in his original post.
Here’s the best I can find:
“Secretariat. Greatest horse of all time, right?
In 1973, O.J. Simpson was the landslide choice for AP male athlete of the year after being the first to rush for over 2,000 yards in a season. Hank Aaron and Bill Walton rounded out the top three.
Newspaper accounts at the time expressed a tone of surprise that Secretariat even figured in the voting at all, coming in a distant sixth for male athlete of the year.”
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2009/12/22/sp-femaleathlete-ap.html
In any event, I think the basic controversy is whether you think horses deserve to be counted in these things at all. Some people do, some people don’t. If you do, I could easily make the case that Zenyatta should have won altogether.
“that hasn’t happened before with male horses? ”
I’m not sure what you’re getting at, but Zenyatta is the first philly to ever win the Breeder’s Cup Classic.
Oh, and going further into NCAA Div I-A sports, 64 of 132 teams are not named after animals. Whence this definition of “most?”
From the Oakland Press (http://hosted2.ap.org/MIPON/APSports/Article_2009-12-22-TEN-Female-Athlete-of-the-Year-Horses/id-pfb378b373f694e79b2d8255a671a6e80)
Is this the first time the AP voted for horses as Female Athlete of the Year? (I couldn’t find much historical data beyond the overall winners.) If so, is it not possible that this was simply an extraordinary year for fillies? Would the AP be vindicated if, in the not too distant future, male horses received votes? I don’t see that we’re discussing a trend here.
WEll I’m a female human and I don’t mind that female horses are included along with female humans on a greatest athelete list so long as male horses and humans are also compared.
I wish that horse atheletes were treated as well a the human oes. We don’t turn our human also rans into dog food.
WEll I’m a female human and I don’t mind that female horses are included along with female humans on a greatest athelete list so long as male horses and humans are also compared.
Yeah, that pretty much sums up my position as well. Which was what I was trying to say in response to the Spiny one. I got nothing but love for all animals. I’m a super bleeding heart in that respect. As long as this wasn’t sexist, I have no prob with it at all. I kind of like it, actually. With that caveat.
Ok, so as best I can tell, the AP has actually been pretty stingy with non-humans on these lists. Whereas SI made Secretariat Sportsman of the Year and ESPN ranked 3 horse in their list of 100 Greatest Athletes Ever, Secretariat is apparently the only horse who’s ever gotten votes in the AP’s award.
The flip side to that, I think, is that it’s somewhat harder to argue for those male horses than it is these phillies, because they didn’t necessarily accomplish things as objectively historical. A much better test will come if a male horse ends the 31 years and counting without a Triple Crown winner, and whether or not they get any votes in the AP awards.
21 out of 30 MLB teams…
. . . are not named after animals, so I can’t imagine where you think you’re getting this idea from.
JFTR, I get 23. There are Orioles, Blue Jays, Marlins, Tigers, Cubs, Cardinals, and Diamondbacks.
And two are named for items of clothing, of all things.
Yeah, Brien, that sounds about right.
Thanks all for the helpful research, and the setting straight of myself.
Bernard: The Rays.
Bernard: the Astros, aren’t they named after the Jetsons dog?
I was just thinking of the reverse, that human athletes are put in the same class as animals.
“Spirited” “killer instinct” “natural ability” “game”; are we talking about sports professionals or pit bulls?
And as to broke down horses ending up as pet food, what about the shortened life expectancies and crippling infirmities of former football players and boxers, among others, from injuries sustained during their careers? Those milked out of their earnings by unscrupulous agents and hangers on and discarded when the money runs out?
Bernard: Ironically enough, the Phillies.
Bernard: the Astros, aren’t they named after the Jetsons dog?
Marty wins the thread.
BTW, Brien, fillies are horses. Phillies are baseball players, and not named after animals.
Another thing to consider is that the awarding of Male Athlete of the Year to Jimmie Johnson justifies voting for the phillies as well. After all, a good number of people don’t consider auto racing a sport, and would argue that race car drivers aren’t athletes. But Johnson won the award basically because he reached a bench mark no one else has ever accomplished, even though his inclusion on the list at all may be a bit controversial. Considering that, the fact that 2 phillies who set historic benchmarks in their “sport” as well got votes on the Female side, and didn’t even combine for 50% of the winner’s tally at that, comes off, IMO, as fairly consistent.
Brien: I’m not sure what you’re getting at, but Zenyatta is the first philly to ever win the Breeder’s Cup Classic.
Brien: Bernard: Ironically enough, the Phillies.
Sometimes I can’t tell that’s something’s meant as a joke even if it whacks me in the nose, so if this is one of those times, cancel this comment.
But given that the first of those 2 quotes seems to imply that Brien thinks a female horse is a “philly” rather than a “filly,” the second seems to follow suit by implying that there’s a baseball team named after a bunch of female horses instead of after its home city, otherwise known as Philly-delphia.
??
Funnily enough, I posted my previous comment before seeing Brien’s Phillies comment, which ended up posting just before mine.
No, I didn’t know how to spell filly. Doh.
The other baseball team is the cubs, incidentally.
I got Cubs, but missed Rays. Still missing one. In the spirit of Marty’s suggestion, maybe the Rockies are named for the famous flying squirrel.
Now I’m curious too as to where Phil got his count.
Poking around idly, I came upon this chart of baseball team nicknames since forever. I knew the Braves were once in Boston, but who knew (not I) that they were once called the Boston Beaneaters? 😉
That must have been fun.
Phillies are baseball players
Also cigars.
@ JanieM:
Yes, and after that they changed their name to the “Boston Doves” for three seasons.
Guess marketing departments moved a lot slower in those days…..
Jay C: lol.
That made me wonder if the Doves ever played the Hawks.
Apparently not.
To go along with the Boston Doves, the Phillies, per Janie’s link, were once called the Philadelphia Quakers.
These are pretty non-aggressive names for sports teams.
It’s also interesting that in the mid-fifties Cincinnati changed from the subversive-sounding “Reds” to “Redlegs.” They reverted in 1959.
As opposed to the tough- and scary-sounding “Phillies?” (It ain’t football.)
Or the fleet but sketchy Dodgers?
“Phillies” and “Dodgers” and many other names are at least neutral as far as aggressiveness connotations. Can’t say that for “Doves” and “Quakers.”
“Dodgers,” IIRC, originated not from “artful dodger,” but from “trolley dodger.” Brooklyn was one of the earliest places to have trolley cars, which its residents presumably had to dodge.
At least that’s what Roger Kahn says in “Boys of Summer”.
They reverted in 1959
commies.
I didn’t spend much time scanning that link with the nicknames, but it looks like there’s plenty there to surprise and delight.
I was born in 1950 and thus first knew the Cincinnati team as the “Redlegs.” (Must not have been paying attention before I was 3.) When they later became the “Reds” I thought it marketing’s attempt to be slick. Funny that they have been going back and forth between “Reds” and “Red Stockings” or “Redlegs” since the beginning.
And what’s with the Cleveland Naps? (Wikipedia has the answer. There was one Napoleon Lajoie….)
Is this our holiday weekend open thread? 😉
Now I’m curious too as to where Phil got his count.
In a fit of tediousness, I just pulled up lists of current team names and counted them. For some reason I counted “Mariners” as an animal name. o_O
Is this our holiday weekend open thread? 😉
No, I’ll get a proper one up and running in a bit.
“the Phillies, per Janie’s link, were once called the Philadelphia Quakers.”
And more recently (i.e., 1940’s) as the Blue Jays. I wonder if the Toronto team needs to pay royalties?
On the other hand, the University of Pennsylvania teams are still called the Quakers. The basketball team has been called “too non-violent around the rim”.
I just can’t get excited about the writer’s point in this article. Is this bit of hype suppose to cause aggravation and upset? Yawn. t
Another country heard from.
For some reason I counted “Mariners” as an animal name.
Odd. For some reason I did that too on my first count and then caught it. Maybe we thought “albatross” or something.
Which now reminds of the great description of an inept Mariner infielder:
“He stoppeth one of three.”
Just in case you don’t know, some of the Japanese names for baseball teams are a hoot. I mean, I think the Dragons are a cool name, but the Carp and the Whales always give me a chuckle. And a dive into the wikipedia is also fun, for gems like the fact that the mascots for the Tohoku Rakuten Golden Eagles are ‘Clutch’ and ‘Clutchina’.
LJ: it took me a while (some years back) to figure out how to parse “Nippon Ham Fighters”.
17 out of 32 NFL teams [not named after animals]
I get
Fish(1): Dolphins,
Birds(5): Ravens, Falcons, Eagles, Cardinals, Seahawks
Felines(4): Bengals, Lions, Jaguars, Panthers,
Humans(14): Steelers, Browns, Packers, Saints, Bills, Buccaneers, Vikings, Texans, Patriots, Cowboys, Redskins, Chiefs, Raiders, 49ers
Other Mammals(4): Bears, Colts, Broncos, Rams
Mythical Beings(2): Titans, Giants
Non-living Things(2): Jets, Chargers[1]
So, depending on your definition of “animal”, 14, 28, or 30 are named after animals.
1. The Chargers’ imagery shows a bolt of electricity, not a horse.
“He stoppeth one of three.”
Why is Jose Offerman like Michael Jackson?
They both wear one glove for no apparent reason.
Mike,
One thing: Dolphins are mammals not fish.
One question: What is a “Brown”?
The Browns were named for Paul Brown, the first coach and general manager of the team.
I’m not sure that answers Eric’s question, though. The original “Brown” was a human (Paul), but what the plural nickname actually references….who can say. Clones of Paul Brown? 😉
Perhaps it was originally a possessive: “Brown’s football team”.
(There’s a baseball analog, by the way: Brooklyn’s team was sometimes known as the Robins, after their beloved manager Wilbert Robinson.)
“The original “Brown” was a human (Paul), but what the plural nickname actually references….who can say. ”
They probably wore brown.
There’s a baseball analog, by the way: Brooklyn’s team was sometimes known as the Robins, after their beloved manager Wilbert Robinson.
And another, also in Cleveland: The Indians were once known as the Naps, after player/manager Napoleon Lajoie. Having said that, I can’t resist quoting Ring Lardner
Who lost out in the battle
Of old Waterloo?
I don’t know, I don’t know
They say ’twas Na-po-le-on
May be it’s true
May be so, I don’t know
The pink sheets don’t print
Mr. Bonaparte’s face
No stories about him today
‘Cause he never could hold down
That old second base
Like his name sake,
Big Nap Lay’-oo-way
I’m not sure that answers Eric’s question, though. The original “Brown” was a human (Paul), but what the plural nickname actually references….who can say.
I was thinking of Paul, but I see that their original logo was a Brownie, (an elf-like creature that Wikipedia helpfully reminds us is the British version of the German Heinzelmännchen.)