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?
Thoughts!
Oh, and here’s the article
http://www.slamonline.com/online/other-ballers/womens/2009/12/missing-the-point/
I know York’s, the author of the SLAM article, question was rhetorical but I cannot help but answer it. The reason making it into the NBA is considered better than making it into the WNBA is because everyone knows a team composed of second round NBA draft picks would beat the WNBA All-Star team. I am not being sexist, the reality is that men and women are different physically and that is just biology. When people want to be the best they want to be at the top of their field, the NBA is the pinnacle of basketball excellence.
As for Mill, I think he would be fine with where the WNBA is in relation to the NBA. Yes Mill was a feminist but he was also a realist. Mill talked about experimenting and not just taking things because they are tradition. I would say we have experimented and the WNBA is a good thing that should continue to exist. But the public prefers the NBA and that is just the way it is.
Interesting question. I cannot see a reason why woman should not be allowed to play in the NBA if their skill, ability, endurance, and all other components are equal to an NBA male. I am confident that such a move would be provocative, especially since basketball is a contact sport in many ways. Perhaps another question. If a woman could throw a 98 mile fastball accurately (baseball not softball), should she be able to play in the MLB? I think Mills would conclude yes.
Interesting. Unfortunately, the goal of female collegiate basketball players may have to be the NBA in the future. This is because the WNBA is in financial trouble. Ever year, they lose large amounts of money, and are bailed out by the NBA, and the NBA might not continue its charitable actions much longer.
Women should be allowed to play in the NBA. However, combining the NBA with the WNBA would be unfair to women because as the first comment states, men and women are biologically different. Therefore, the chances of a woman reaching the NBA would be much slimmer. As a result, I think that having two professional leagues is the best strategy. One league can be for the best players, both men and women. The other league would only be for women in order to give them a fair chance at playing basketball professionally. I think that Mill would approve this solution because it gives women the chance to compete at the highest level.
I believe that if a woman is talented enough, and possesses the physical and athletic prowess to compete on the same level as men, then that woman should certainly be allowed to play in the NBA. However, not every woman in the WNBA is capable of this, so in the rare event that a woman from the WNBA makes the transition to the NBA, it could indeed create a lot controversy and calamity; because like you pointed out in your post, such an event would make the NBA seem superior to the WNBA, when in reality both leagues should be respected equally for their athletic eliteness.
I think this is a very interesting outlook on this specific topic. I never thought about it that way, I guess that further perpetuates the idea that we, as a society, do see male athletes as superior to female athletes. The problem is that we do have different biological make-up which does make men, physically, stronger than women. But the quandary lies here; since we are not physically equal, a women playing in the WNBA should be just as revered as a man in the NBA. The women are playing against women at the highest level while men are playing against men at the highest level. Women and men should both be equally praised for their athletic talent if they have made it to the highest level of competition possible.
If women can play at the level required in the NBA, then by all means she should be able to compete. However, I don’t think that is the point we should be making. In order to end the subjection of women especially in sports, we need to understand that Women and Men are just different. We should respect both leagues equally as the best of the best with their respective athletes. There is no reason that we cannot accept that the WNBA is just as excellent and intense for women as the NBA is for men.
In reference to all the comments above, do you remember the graph Professor LaVaque-Manty showed us in lecture? It was a graph which consisted of 3 bell curves, each one shifted more to the right. The one shifted all the way to the right represented men if I remember correctly. According to the graph, it was stated that the most superb woman athlete (the extreme tip on the right) could be better than lets say 95% of men in a certain athletic field. However, the superb male athlete is better than 99% of women (due to the shift in right). The NBA, like all the major sports in the United States, is the “pinnacle of basketball excellence” (stating Jacob above). Overall, I believe excellence should not be defined to who does something, rather to what is done in context with the situation.
Does not everything work that way, other people’s values determining the validity of something? The general public runs everything because it decides what is normal, and normal is what people are. Only very few people are free from societal norms completely, and they are seen as crazy. But they are also likely the most complete people alive.
The WNBA ladies have done something amazing with themselves and their lives, so I hope that they can see that they are just as valid of athletes as the NBA players.
I’m not opposed to the idea of women in the NBA but I do think that based off the natural differences between a man and woman’s body, she may be at a slight disadvantage when playing against a man. That’s why there are separate leagues for sports; there is not really an equal playing ground for women and men when it comes to sports.
I think that as long as the NBA has more teams, more network coverage, more loyal fans, and a longer lifespan it is foolish to compare the NBA to the WNBA. Though it is prestigious to play in the WNBA, it cannot nor probably ever will compare to the NBA. the NBA has a longer established life time and deeper longer fan bases. Even typing this blog post you can see the difference between the prestige of the two sports organizations. NBA doesn’t appear as a mis-spelled word whereas WNBA has that annoying red underline under it. I think that women need to aspire to play in the NBA so they can get the prestigious pay and respect they deserve.