While reading another blog post addressing the NBA Commissioner David Stern’s claims that a woman might play in the NBA in the near future, I recalled an article I read on the topic that offered a different perspective.
In this article from SlamOnline, the author suggests that a woman doesn’t need to play in the NBA to validate women’s basketball. The author believes the idea that the NBA should be the “goal” for both male and female athletes is insulting to the female athletes, because they should be respected as athletes within the WNBA, and not be forced to strive towards the NBA as the ultimate goal. He asks the rhetorical question, “Why should making it into the NBA be considered better than making it into the WNBA?”
I think this connects back to a point that the professor made in lecture about the values of the people determining the validity of something. Since the general public regards the NBA as superior to the WNBA, the WNBA athletes might be inclined to feel the same way.
I wonder how Mill would feel about this? Is this the same thing as “separate but equal”? Can you even consider the NBA and WNBA equal?
Oh, and here’s the article