Sports are perhaps the only place where competitiveness and the desire to win can take place in a context of full-on justice. The rules of each modality serve, after all, in an equitable manner, for all parties involved.
But if this has been the #OlimpíadaDasMulheres (Women´s Olympics), it is less because of absolute numbers and results based on fair play, and more because the event doubles as a metaphor for gender-based disputes (which not only overflow this space, but also hardly count as “disputes”, seeing as they are aimed at equality...).
Feminism does not count as ideological imposition. Feminism is not revenge. It is not even a tie-break, because even if gender relations were a game, has the game ever been tied?
Understanding the magnitude of the task that is to fight for equality does not require an equally magnanimous effort, though.
It starts with believing in what those who point to where inequality is revealed have to say. Or ― if asking people to trust strangers is too much ― asking them to at least contemplate the possibility that those who point towards inequality might be right wouldn’t be bad.
In short: it is necessary to at least try to assimilate what women say about their experiences as women ― in sports or in any field ― especially if many women endorse the same complaint. But this is rarely the case.
No athlete is immune to sexist media (no woman is), but the stories that best substantiate the argument I have been doing so far come from football.
I hope it’s clear that what I intend with this article is to outline the tremendous lack of understanding about what we call “sexism present in the media discourse”, and to do it using football as symbology is instrumental because ― at least in the Brazilian context ― this is where this presence is stronger, where it happens in the most predictable ways, and with a seemingly unshakable frequency, despite the abundant knowledge produced on the subject.
In a recent interview, Brazilian player Formiga ― the only player in the world to have participated in five Olympic Games, that is, all editions since the sport was included in the events ― said, with the wisdom of the veteran she is, that she would swap all her awards for the professionalization of Brazilian women’s football. Her argument is simple, generous and political: “I might not have a medal, but Brazil would win many ones. Just professionalize [women’s football] and gold will come time and again.”
Formiga fortunately promises to not stop talking, because “things need to improve”. Alas, unfortunately she is not the first football player to point to the unfortunate precariousness where the women’s game flourishes.
I wrote this article* two days ago, hours after the match between Brazil and Sweden that took away our hopes for a gold medal. We lost on penalties, and our fight now is for the bronze. That day was not the best for Brazilian women in the Rio games, but it was worsened by the media, whose commentary about our losses were more akin to Tubby’s reaction to Little Lulu’s performances than to anything resembling serious journalism.
And though it’s easy ― and appropriate ― to jest about the childish nature of misogynistic jokes aimed at female athletes, laughing at this puerile behavior is insufficient. It is well known that seemingly harmless jokes are one of the most powerful engines of the machine that grinds women to death.
A collection of media images circulating through social networks accumulates examples of sexism in news stories about the # Rio2016, and not only in Brazil. For those who follow the sports media with feminist lens firmly planted in their eyes (like I have been, for at least three Olympics Games), the feeling is that plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. The same chauvinistic errors raise the same feminist complaints ― no wonder feminists sound so repetitive.
Since the beginning of the games ― as expected ― there was no shortage of frankly obsolete comments on women’s football. I do not mean the opinions of social media commentators, but those of sports journalists. I can live with a silly layman’s opinion, but journalism should not be based on guesswork, and it is urgent that sports coverage seek to know more about the history of women in sports.
Symmetries between football as it is practiced by men and women that disregard the political, social and economic context resulting from/that foster gender inequality are false.
This is because it is precisely context that which affects the technical level of sports practice, be it for men or women. Insisting in comparing men’s and women’s football using exactly the same criteria, without looking at the context in which both arise, endorses what the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu calls the “paradox of the doxa” ― that is, the ease with which the order as it is perpetuates itself, despite the injustices embedded in its power relations, naturalizing as acceptable even the most intolerable living conditions. (In good Portuguese bad English: “things are like this because it has always been so”.)
The double standards found on some comments about the women’s game also support this paradox. Some male journalists’ speech reveal much more their taste than their actual abilities for serious analyses. By saying they don’t like to watch the woman’s game because it is “less interesting” and “not as technically good” what they are saying is they cannot be bothered to support the growth of the sport.
If they knew their History or paid attention to culture, they’d think twice before speaking gibberish. The practice of football was forbidden to women until 1979 in Brazil, and men are never told that they can’t play football because it is a “girls’ sport”.
Male ballet dancers probably do hear that, yes. But even if this equivalence was valid (it is not ― not the same activity, nor is the context, and so on): you don’t see women refusing to watch Carlos Acosta dance, or telling others not to do so, because he is not “as interesting” or “less technically good” than, say, Misty Copeland.
It is expected that journalists will have (or will at least seek) basic knowledge of the subjects they write about. Nobody expects everyone to know everything in-depth, so when poor or wrong information is published or broadcast, people who know about the subject in question are often quick to point it out. However, when sexist flaws in media arguments are pointed out, male journalists refuse to even have the decency to check the facts.
There is a cycle of debate that stems from sexist media coverage (and this is acute especially in sports media about women’s football in Brazil) that goes like this: someone makes a chauvinistic comment; women point it out; said someone claims that “this is political correctness gone mad” (or equivalent); a heated debate where accusations fly takes place; and finally (two possibilities here) it all ends up right there, or said person releases a “sorry not sorry” note.
I have been interviewed by many media outlets during the Rio 2016 games, and my answer to the frequent question about what is necessary for the women’s game to improve has been: ‘society needs to start listening to the players’ demands, as feminism does’.
Feminism is social theory that arises from the perspective of women. Talking about the knowledge produced by feminists, about the point of view that we offer, is a way out of the paradox of the doxa for the doxa, you see, is androcentric.
Attempts to silencing women pound feminist alarms because it is in silence that injustice flourishes. We will keep on talking, because we will continue to report, build and register History from our perspective. One needs to know women’s stories in order to understand what happens in women’s lives. This perspective is not optional - it’s essential.
I use the nickname “guerreiras” (warriors) to describe the female football players, and I don’t do it lightly. The obstacles these athletes face remain relatively invisible to those who only follow the game when they are already playing for big clubs and the struggles that we hear about are for equal pay and more media space. But these barriers are constantly revealed - in interviews like that given by Formiga, in the immediate reactions to sexism in social media, or through the numerous initiatives, such as the Guerreiras Project, which are committed to telling these stories with the voices of their protagonists.
We need to hear them to know what these obstacles are, and it is urgent that professional commentators take the voices into account before issuing unsubstantiated opinions disguised as journalism.
It is precisely the combination of lack of information and an unwillingness to acquire it (when women who have more knowledge about it call out the bullshit) that which constitutes the “sexism present in the media discourse”.
*A version of this article was originally published in portuguese in Carta Capital.