Rah! Rah! Rah! for Male Cheerleaders

I just had to share this.  The following comes from Garrison Keillor’s The Writer’s Almanac.

- – -

It’s the birthday of cheerleading, which made its debut at the University of Minnesota on this date[2 November] in 1898. Pep clubs had been around for a couple of decades, especially at Princeton, where their all-male pep club led the crowd in unified chanting to motivate the football team. In 1884, Princeton alum Thomas Peebles moved to Minneapolis, and brought the pep club concept along to the University of Minnesota’s football games. Two of the university’s rugby players, John Adams and Win Sargent, came up with a “team yell” that same year to cheer on the rugby team: Ski-U-Mah, which neatly rhymes with “Rah, rah, rah!” But all of these chants and cheers were led from the stands.

In the fall of 1898, the U of M’s football team had suffered three consecutive losses, and fans were desperate for a way to raise team spirit for the season’s final game against Northwestern. The pep club brainstormed plans to further involve the spectators, and nominated a group of “yell leaders” to lead the crowd in the now-traditional chant, “Rah, Rah, Rah! Ski-U-Mah! Hoo-Rah! Hoo-Rah! Varsity! Varsity! Minn-e-so-ta!” One of the yell leaders, Johnny Campbell, took the radical step of running out to the playing field with a megaphone. He faced the crowd, whipped them to a frenzy, and got much of the credit for Minnesota’s victory.

Cheerleading was a male-only sport until 1923, when the first female cheerleaders took the field. This phenomenon didn’t really take off until the 1940s, when the male student body was depleted by World War II. The ’20s also saw the advent of acrobatics, human pyramids, and dance moves to accompany the fight songs and chants.

Hitman Sniper and Zombie Blood: Drinking Masculinity

There was once a day – I’m thinking of the late 19th century - in which special drinks with dubious medicinal effects were sold on the basis of overconfidence in scientific breakthrough.  What has changed isn’t the wild claims and general quackery, but the kind of willful ignorance we as American consumers exhibit as we buy such products.  We know that 3 mg of Echinacea isn’t going to restore our entire psycho-somatic equilibrium.  But it sure feels good to buy a pretty can of sugar water labeled “Overdrive.”

As long as we’re buying 16oz containers of fantasy, why not market them with a gendered identity in mind?  With gender is more and more an ornamental accessory to our lives, we can finally drink ourselves into manliness.  Such has become the reality of 7-11 stores everywhere.  Marketers have pegged young males as the primary consumers of energy drinks, so much so that you’ll never see something advertised as “manly.”  That would unpoetic, stating the obvious.  Instead companies sell the feeling, offering something akin to the experience of primitive hunters amplifying their own power by consuming the life-essence from the slain.  Accordingly, we’re offered a veritable smorgasbord of dude-drinks with names like “Mountain Dew Game Fuel,” “Adrenalyn Stack,” “No Fear Bloodshot,” “TAPOUT,” and (my personal favorite) “Zombie Blood Energy Potion.” 

“Of course I’ve been awake for four days straight.  I’m an assasin-dunkmaster-executive-rockstar-bodybuilder-fratboy-ninja-warlord-executive who drinks zombie blood for breakfast.”

Not to leave anyone out, there are a handful of opened up for women’s energy drinks: “Redline Princess,” “Pink,” “Vixen Energy Drink.”  But the fact that these libations broadcast their femininity as loudly as possible just underscores the fact that marketers by and large have oriented sales to the peddling of masculine identity.  Kathleen E. Miller found that college undergraduate men on average consumed 2.49 energy drinks a month, compared with a modest 1.22 cans of the stuff among women (Journal of American Journal Health 56:5 [April 2008]). 

Miller does not claim a 1:1 correlation between energy drinks and irresponsible risk taking, but she warns that energy drink consumption is a good predictor of “toxic jock identity.”  I wasn’t aware that “toxic jock identity” was a condition, but, dear me, it sounds serious.  If only the energy drink industry would devise thirst-quenching technology with extracts to offset the symptoms of such macho ridiculousness in the first place.

Kick-butt Self-actualization

In the long, sweaty tradition of Jazzercise, Tai Bo, and countless other dance/exercise programs, another has been added: piloxing. As a hybrid of pilates, boxing and ballet, it is being marketed as a workout specifically for women. Its sell-line: piloxing turns average women into “tough and agile boxers, gracious [graceful?] ballerinas and hip street dancers.” A snippet from one of the initial DVDs features an exotic dance instructor wearing pink trim and encouraging composure while building ripped abdominals.

In a capitalistic culture promising vicarious experiences for every type of self-fulfilment, piloxing fits in nicely for women. Administrative assistants and saleswomen and homemakers everywhere can be hardened warrior princesses. Now, which exercise routine serves as the equivalent for men?  Where can I sip a martini like James Bond while landing devastating roundhouses?

What Ever Happened to Bill McCartney?

Remember Bill McCartney?  The celebrated football coach of the University of Colorado and founder of Promise Keepers was everywhere in the 1990s, the heyday of the men’s movement.  “Coach” McCartney, loved or hated, was a force within modern Evangelical Christianity.  Even after the beginning of the death spiral of Promise Keepers began in the late 90s, he hung on the organization, and left only in 2003.  Over the next five years he founded The Road to Jerusalem, a dispensationalist parachurch organization getting American churches to support messianic Jews in Israel in order to hasten the second coming of Christ.  Then, in 2008, he returned to Promise Keepers as chairman of the board, though no real signs of life have come from the organization.

Just last November, at age 70, Coach Mac made it known that he was interested in heading the University of Colorado’s fledgling football program again.  That made a stir, including among some vocal college employees, who protested the hire of a “homophobic” and “sexist,” referring to several comments McCartney made over the years as an outspoken Evangelical.  The university ended up hiring Jon Embree.

Brad Childress: Too Many Men on the Field

When the Minnesota Vikings decided to replace coach Mike Tice in 2006, they couldn’t have found a more different leader in the man Brad Childress, at least personality-wise.   Tice had been a player’s player, an ex-lineman who liked to yell and encourage and celebrate.  This had resulted in some exciting years of play, but also some unprofessional moments, not least the party cruise incident involving ample booze and prostitutes.  When the Vikings brought in Childress, president Zygi Wilf described him as a morally solid: ”class, character, discipline, family man.”  So responsible and consistent was Childress that he earned the nickname “Chilly.” 

With the Vikings languishing with a 3-7 record this year, it’s easy to forget the accomplishments of Chilly.  After his inaugural season, the Vikings added two wins to every season, culminating in a season that was one drive away from the Superbowl.  Just a year ago there was talk of Childress for coach of the year.  Holes finally appeared this year, in the front line, the cornerbacks and the broken-down Brett Favre.  But behind these glaring problems lay a deeper, more institutional malaise, the fact that Childress could not hold the Vikings family together any more.  An arrogantFavre insisted on controlling the team on the field, and owner Zygi Wilf was calling too many shots during the week.  Childress couldn’t placate every side, and, when it really mattered, couldn’t play commander of the team. 

When it comes down to it, Childress wasn’t the problem this year.  The Vikings having too many men on the field was the real culprit.  A losing record finally led to the powers-that-be throwing the flag; and guess who gets targeted as the 12th man?

Choosing Tiger Woods’ New Image

Tiger Woods finally appeared last Friday to read a prepared statement.  In the formal apology, he confessed his “irresponsible and selfish behavior,” especially his affairs.  He had felt “entitled” to various “temptations,” but now Woods claimed that he has come to realize that he doesn’t “get to play by different rules.”

So true.   Tiger will no longer have the luxury of getting to carve his own path through the athletic world any more.  He’ll need to slip into one of the more tried and true paths for male celebrity athletes.  Let me start with three more conventional types.

Mr. Ferocious.  Tiger has never had a golden relationship with the media, and getting thrown under the bus by them since November hasn’t helped.  He could try to conjure up all that competitive rage and market it, much like he did on the recent cover of Vanity Fair.  Woods knows how to throw himself into golf.  He knows how to issue the icy glare.  Now simply make an industry out of it, like Barry Bonds or Ty Cobb.  A lot of us have hated to love Tiger; now make us love to hate you.

Mr. Damaged.  Woods spent a total of 45 days in rehab for undisclosed issues, though those certainly include sexual addiction.  Enough celebrities have gone through that process to add him to the long line of the self-abused.  He could come out from this as someone who, always a little red-eyed, has that look of “I know what hell is like, man, I’ve been there.”  John Mayer has taken this tormented path, however unconvincingly.  But Woods actually has reason to bemoan his own estate.  Most of his big contracts are history.  Elin appears ready to ditch him.  He has mortified his own flesh since this incident, and has even thrown in a little bit of martyr (“I just want to keep my private life private”) and family coverer (“[Elin] never hit me that night or any other night”).  Playing the sufferer won’t get him back the big contracts, but it seems to play out of Wood’s strengths. 

Mr. Upstanding.  I’m not talking about an untouchable image – that was the very thing that got him into trouble in the first place.  I’m talking about becoming the warm and amiable figures so abundant on the PGA tour in the first place.  Become a gentleman.  A back-slapping country club member.  The neighbor who lends you his mower.  This has been the bread and butter mold for everyone from Brett Favre to Jack Nicklaus.  People like to be around you.  Unfortunately, Tiger has been a recluse for so long, relatively uninterested in others.

That said, Woods has hinted at one other possibility which would be rather unconventional coming from his particular situation.  On to a novel #4…

Mr. Religious.  This one can be tricky, as most religious figures tend to be the A.C. Greens and the Tim Tebows of the sporting world, those who haven’t fallen from grace.  But Tiger might have enough notoriety to become the exception, to become the redeemed sinner – Buddhist style.  In a daring move, Woods told the press, “Part of following this path for me is Buddhism, which my mother taught me at a young age. People probably don’t realize it, but I was raised a Buddhist, and I actively practiced my faith from childhood until I drifted away from it in recent years.  Buddhism teaches that a craving for things outside ourselves causes an unhappy and pointless search for security.  It teaches me to stop following every impulse and to learn restraint. Obviously, I lost track of what I was taught.”  Spirituality would restore some countering “balance” to his professional life, claimed Woods.  We do not yet have any outspoken, restored Buddhists on the golf course.  Yet.

Take your pick, Tiger, and step up to the tee.

Sexually Ambiguous 800m Champion under Investigation

After her impressive victory in the 800m at the World Championships last week, crushing the competition by a good two seconds, South African teenager Caster Semenya was rewarded with a gold medal – and an investigation into whether or not she is female.

This is, of course, not unheard of. Ever since people found out that Stella Walsh, the 100m Olympic champion in 1932, had ambiguous genitalia, sporting boards have kept an eye out for this sort of thing.

Very rarely does a man pose as a woman athlete. Much more common are abnormalities in the determination of one’s sex, either because of chromosomal disorders, overproduction of androgens, non-responsiveness to certain hormones, or other conditions which result in some degree of intersex identity. Very occasionally a woman will find out, often in the midst of fertility testing, that she in fact has an XY combination. I recommend Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen’s My Brother’s Keeper for a good summary of just how many things have to be working normally in order for the XY chromosome pair to result in clearly expressed male physiology.

But that’s not what interests me about this case. It’s more the reaction of the South African athletic federation, Leonard Chuene. He was furious that the sex-testing procedure had been made public, and rightly so. That’s a pretty big breach of confidentiality in the sporting world. But Chuene was also indignant about the test being run at all, saying that there was no basis for it – then going so far as to claim that racism was behind the inquiry: “It would not be like that if it were some young girl from Europe,” Chuene told The Associated Press by telephone. “If it [sic] was a white child, she would be sitting somewhere with a psychologist, but this is an African child.” At a news conference he spewed the same accusation: “We are not going to allow Europeans to describe and define our children.”

Think about how fascinating this is. Chuene is defending his own masculine pride through nationalist posturing – over the issue of an athlete who looks insufficiently feminine. Is he trying to appear more assertive and masculine than Semenya? And why does he feel so obligated to defend her at all costs? Is this also a tactic to “feminize” her, by playing to her youth, making her appear helpless and unable to speak for herself?

Moreover, Chuene describes sex as a matter of a society’s authority to “describe and define.” This is a considerable claim. Scholarship in the twentieth century, from Margaret Mead to Julia Kristeva, explained how gender is a matter of social construction. Only recently have intersex peoples (formerly called hermaphrodites) contended for the non-objectivity and pliability of sex itself. Calling into question the basic binary between male and female pulls the carpet out pretty much from under every society. Which is strange that it’s being declared from the mouth of Chuene, who strikes me as – oddly enough – patriarchal and paternalistic.

For the record, I’m not willing to concede the category of sex simply because of the possibility of biological variance. Neither will the World Championships athletic committee either, I’m sure.