In May of this year the baseball team at Our Lady of Sorrows, a high school charter in Arizona, was scheduled to play a championship game against Mesa Preparatory Academy. Claiming a religious tenet forbidding co-ed sports, they forfeited the final game of the season. Mesa’s second baseman, you see, was a 15-year-old named Paige Sultzbach.
This was not an isolated incident. In 2011 a high school threatened to forfeit a junior varsity football game unless a girl on the opposing team, Mina Johnson, sat out. Johnson, a five-foot-two-inch 172-pound linebacker on the opposing team, had “gain[ed] a reputation in the league as a standout junior varsity player”; she sacked a six-foot quarterback in her very first game. Nevertheless, not wanting to be the cause of a lost opportunity for her team to play, Johnson sat out. The opposing team still lost to hers 60 to zero, but apparently that was less humiliating than losing to a girl.
In my sociology of gender textbook I discuss the practice of segregating sports by gender. Both those on the political left and political right tend to think this is a good idea. Conservatives tend to think that women are more fragile than men, while liberals want women to have the same opportunities.
Ensuring that men never compete alongside or with women, however, also ensures that the belief that men would always win goes unchallenged. In other words, because we already assume that men would win any competition with women, it is men, not women, who have the most to lose from de-segregating sports. If women lose, the status quo — believing women are physically inferior to men — simply remains in place. But if men lose, the assumption of male superiority is undermined.
Women’s participation in non-team sports, of course, potentially challenges these assumptions in a different way. While some of these sports try to write rules that ensure that women never measure up to men (e.g., body building has a cap on how muscular women can be), others lay these comparisons bare, which brings us to Sarah Robles. Robles, a weightlifter, out-lifted all Americans of both sexes at last year’s world championships. “On her best day,” writes Buzzfeed, “she can lift more than 568 pounds — that’s roughly five IKEA couches, 65 gallons of milk, or one large adult male lion.” Here she is lifting 278 pounds.
The Buzzfeed article focuses on how a main source of revenue — corporate sponsorship — is likely out of reach for Robles. Companies don’t like to support athletes who challenge our beliefs about men and women. And Robles certainly does. She’s proof that women can compete with men, at their own games even, and win.
Thanks to Kari for the tip!
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 50
Yrro Simyarin — July 8, 2012
"In other words, because we already assume that men would win any competition with women, it is men, not women, who have the most to lose from de-segregating sports. If women lose, the status quo–believing women are physically inferior to men–simply remains in place. But if men lose, the assumption of male superiority is undermined."
Sort of... in any single competition this is what it means. In the longer terms of organizations of teams and leagues, if the common view is true, then only a handful of women will be able to participate.
Really the best solution, given our current assumptions of performance, is to allow women to choose where they want to compete. It's not particularly "fair", but given the generally lower exposure and prestige of the women's leagues I'm not sure that would matter. Personally I'd kind of love to see how Serena Williams would do on the male Pro Tour instead of watching her destroy the women's field tournament after tournament. On the other hand, how many women would make that choice, when they have the option of dominating the women's league?
QW — July 8, 2012
Be careful conflating RANKING and TOTAL. Robles is a great lifter and out-ranked all other Americans at Worlds. But, excluding Pat Mendes (who bombed), Robles out-LIFTED only one American man, who competed in the 56kg (123 lb) weight class. All other American men, including one competing at 77kg (169 lb), out-totaled Robles by 167 lbs or more. The American man competing at 105kg+, the weight class Robles would fall in, out-totaled her by 116 kg (255 lb).
QW — July 8, 2012
Be careful conflating RANKING and TOTAL. Robles is a great lifter and out-ranked all other Americans at Worlds. But, excluding Pat Mendes (who bombed), Robles out-LIFTED only one American man, who competed in the 56kg (123 lb) weight class. All other American men, including one competing at 77kg (169 lb), out-totaled Robles by 167 lbs or more. The American man competing at 105kg+, the weight class Robles would fall in, out-totaled her by 116 kg (255 lb).
Gayle — July 8, 2012
Such blatant discrimination against those girls! It just makes me sick.
Also, Mina Johnson's team shouldn't have let her sit it out. They should have backed her up.
Legolewdite — July 8, 2012
I suspect co-ed competition would also particularly undermine the outdated notion that women need protecting or saving. Seems to me this is the faulty rationale used to keep women from competing with men in the first place - that they'd get hurt, etc...
Hh — July 8, 2012
Didn't they shut down one of the women's events at Whistler when they kept out-performing the men?
Amanda J — July 8, 2012
" Robles, a weightlifter, out-lifted all Americans of best sexes at last year’s world championships."
I think you meant to write "both sexes." Ideally, it would be "all" but I think you meant both.
Kristen — July 8, 2012
If these were public school teams, would they legally be allowed to forfeit? It seems that would be a blatant violation of Title IX, that says a person cannot be excluded from participation or subjected to discrimination under any education program. If a school's sports team tries to force a woman not to participate, they shouldn't just forfeit the game, they should be brought up on charges of violating federal law.
Lisa, any info on public schools? All these teams are private.
Aliyah Cole — July 8, 2012
Since when does Catholicism (I'm assuming that the school is Catholic, judging from their name) prohibit mixed sports?
picklefactory — July 8, 2012
For accuracy's sake -- note that when it says Sarah Robles lifts 568 lbs, that is the total of both olympic lifts (the snatch and the clean and jerk), not all at once.
In the photo above Sarah is snatching 119 kg (262 lbs), not 317 lbs.
Not meant to be a criticism -- she is a truly gifted athlete in a sport that doesn't get the attention it deserves. Men and women who compete at that level in a sport that doesn't have much in the way of remuneration show their dedication, consistency, and passion every time they compete.
Sarah M — July 8, 2012
We had a female wrestler at my high school - this was back in the mid-to-late-80s, and she was certainly the first female wrestler on a squad in our region, and I think, in most of NYS. She (sadly) won more then one match because the opposition forfeited - very often, with an excuse that boiled down to "but I wouldn't know where I could grapple." Yeah.
reo — July 9, 2012
"In other words, because we already assume that men would win any competition with women, it is men, not women, who have the most to lose from de-segregating sports. If women lose, the status quo–believing women are physically inferior to men–simply remains in place. But if men lose, the assumption of male superiority is undermined."
That section misses one crucial consequence in one of the possible scenarios: if women would lose in most of the cases there would be much fewer women athletes in sports tv. That would cement the image that sport is not for women. If 99% of all the medals in the upcoming Olympics were won by men what consequences would that have?
russ — July 9, 2012
Similar questions come up in the world of professional strategy board games like Chess, Go, Shogi, etc, which often distinguish between male and female players.
QUICKIES 07/09/2012 - Queereka — July 9, 2012
[...] are flimsy creatures with gossamer wins who don’t stand a chance against men, but because sex-segregated sports serve to protect and perpetuate the myth that men are always better at sports. To do this, Lisa Wade points out several women at the top of their sport, including Sarah Robles, [...]
QW — July 9, 2012
By the way, Robles has some interesting things to say on her blog about women competing directly against men (in this case, for funding):
"When the [funding] standards changed, I could not believe how the funds were
allocated. There was no longer funding for the top male and top female
athlete. It was the top athlete overall despite gender. This system
seriously makes men and women compete against each other for funding. If
this were any type of "employment" system, it would be completely
unacceptable. ...
I proposed a more fair system of paying the top male and female
athletes equally, that did not cost the USOC or USAW any extra funding. ... Needless to say, nothing changed. Despite having women placing higher,
scoring more points, and therefore having [more] Olympic Slots than the men. I
as well as other women were/are receiving less funds than men based on
these ridiculous standards."
(Source: http://prettystrongblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-i-left-olympic-training-center.html )
Carpenter — July 9, 2012
A few years ago ago I was fascinated with the Women's weightlifting progression. I even made a graph tacking the lifting improvement over time in American records. Right now it looks like the top women's weight category 75k+ has world lifting record totals that outlift the bottom two men's weight classes 56k and 62k.
If you compare the women's 58k class record to the mens 56 or 62k records (maybe take the average record of these two classes to compare) you see the women are lifting about 80% of the men at record. Not too bad, and a historical improvement. I have hope for the future improvements. Women are at several disadvantages that might mean systematic errors in this simple comparison.
First of all, as noted by many female bodybuilders, there is far less tolerance for women doping as compared to men-this is hard to control for and it unlikely everyone is clean. Also, since women aren't being pulled from the largest possible talent pool because there is so little advertising for the sport and it isn't considered desirable. This is kind of a problem for american weightlifting in general. Maybe I'll break out my old graphs.
ckb — July 9, 2012
First thing--Sarah Robles is a magnificent athlete. I'm proud to have her competing for my country in the Olympic Games. (Fun fact: Robles sufferes from a skeletal abnormality that forces her to endure intense pain when she lifts. She is unbelievably tough.)
But--there is a lot of faulty information and analysis floating around Ms. Robles, and none of this can help any debate. Contra Buzzfeed, she can not 'lift 568 pounds' until you add up the weight she lifts in the two Olympic lifts--the "clean and jerk" and the "snatch." The total is how scores are reported, not how much someone lifts at a go. This is very important if, for example, you look up the world record of 580 lbs. for the clean and jerk, and think that Sarah Robles must truly be one of the strongest people in the world. But I don't get credit for "benching a thousand pounds" when I do ten reps of a hundred. (Okay, eight reps. You got me.)
She out _ranked_ her male teammates in the 2011 championships. She most certainly did not out _lift_ them. The full results are available for scrutiny at http://www.iwf.net/events/2011/WWC_Paris/Results_Book_Paris2011.pdf Sarah Robles is listed in the 2011 results with a body weight of 118 kg, which would place her in the unlimited men's division (115+).
In the snatch, Sarah Robles lifted 114 kg. The best mens' performance was 214. Robles would have placed behind every male that succeeded in lifting, which means she probably would not have made the cut for the championships in the first place. (The lowest weight even attempted in this division was 135 kg.) American Patrick Mendes lifted 172.
In the clean and jerk, Sarah Robles lifted 135 kg. The best mens' performance was 250. Robles, again, would not have beaten anyone who succeeded in lifting at all. The lightest weight attempted was 165.
It is curious to mention, in a post that argues against women's divisions in sport, that Sarah Robles outperformed her male teammates--becuase the only reason this can be considered true at all is precisely because there are womens' divisions.
Let's acknowledge that any social phenomenon is likely to have multiple and complex causes. And, doubtless, protecting male egos is in the mix somewhere. But without womens' divisions, we simply would not have many women medalists. Good? Bad? I don't know. And we can talk about the mix of Olympic events, too, and whether women might come into their own with ultra-marathons, breath-hold diving, or what have you. Or whether another twenty or fifty years might show us that women are just as strong, fast, etc., as men at the championship level. It may be! But the numbers simply do not tell that story today. Removing women's divisions today would have the simple result of eliminating them from the Olympics.
Koldpurple — July 9, 2012
Yay for these awesome athletes!!!
Rebecca Milton — July 12, 2012
The only Olympic sport that places Men and Women on the same playing field in an equal environment is Equestrian. All the criteria is the same (unobtainable perfection) and each individual is scored against the ideal.
somebody42 — July 12, 2012
I don't know why I insist on reading the comments on this blog. It's positively dehumanizing to see how eager the commenters are to defend and argue for male supremacy. We don't just live in a patriarchal society. We live in a male-supremacist society. Sports discussions and the extraordinary value placed on sports really highlight this fact. They reinforce the idea that the particular type of physical performance tested in celebrated sports indicates overall superiority. Areas in which women are routinely expected to (note the "expected to"; that's important) outperform men are not quantifiable and not valued in the same way. Who's on TV being lauded and paid millions of dollars for child nurturing? (Some fool will come up with an example. That person will not receive the veneration, name recognition, nor income of major sports stars.) Sports are valued so much *because* they support male supremacism, not because of their inherent value. Hell, for most of you people, they're just entertainment anyway.
JK455 — July 16, 2012
I heard Sarah Robles has successfully secured a new Olympic sponsor, Solve Media. Good for her!
Anonymous — August 19, 2013
At the end of the day, is there ANY commitment to honesty at this site? I was just popping back to this article to pick up a couple of references, and I was really astonished to find it shot through with all the blatant inaccuracies that a group of commenters pointed out "a year ago," as the comments engine puts it. I know Dr. Wade engages with her commenters when she likes what they have to say, and I find it difficult to believe that she simply hasn't noticed that a statement like "[Robles is] proof that women can compete with men, at their own games even, and win" is entirely, objectively, wrong. Is this what Sociology is today? I'm really disappointed.