Commercialization of the Student Athlete

Should college athletes be paid? That is one of the most difficult questions to answer in regards to collegiate athletes. The blog "Emmert on student athletes and the commercialization" discusses what the new NCAA President Mark Emmert feels about paying a student athlete. He says that a student athlete will never be paid during his duration as president and that by doing so they can preserve the sanctity of college sport. One common misconception that the general population has is that larger programs such as Florida, Alabama, Penn State, UCLA and other large prestigious schools make large amounts of money from their athletics and have the money to pay their players. Sadly only few schools even come close to breaking even (Iowa being one that just about breaks even). Paying players and giving them royalties on jersey sales and perhaps basketball cards, would take away the drive and motivating factors that contribute to going to the next level. Also, if players were to be compensated, recruiting would become a huge bidding war with the athlete solely going to the highest bidder, rather than the best program. This years biggest story regarding college athletes and being paid was about Auburns Quarterback Cam Newton who's father tried to set up a 'pay-to-play' system at Mississippi State. Allegedly Cam knew nothing about this but many have the feeling it will come back to haunt him in a few months or years after the investigation is completely over. The reason I bring up this story is because I believe many athletes and programs get away with this unnoticed. Unfortunately for Cam, he was a Heisman candidate and the Quarterback for the #1 team when the allegations came out so he had everything to lose and every critic looking for something to knock him out of both races. Although I am sure there could be positives that come out of paying student athletes, like Mr. Emmert I believe the system should remain the way it is.

Redirecting the Gaze

I read an interesting post on the Sports, Media & Society blog that began by talking about the positive coverage of the women's NCAA tournament game between the UCONN Huskies and the Baylor Bears. A story about the game even grabbed a headline spot on CNN's mobile page. Apparently near the end of this CNN story there was a quote from a UCONN player commenting on the enormous size of 6'8" Baylor center Brittney Griner. The quote was out of place and held no real meaning to the basis of the story. It is for this reason that the blog post related this comment about Griner to the never-ending saga of female athletes' images in the media.

Generally, in the media, female athletes are viewed in very different ways than male athletes. The media often will focus on the looks of female athletes, especially off the court/playing field where women can be shown wearing revealing dresses, tight workout clothes, or even with their children. All of these visuals create the idea of femininity. It's this idea that our society has that women must fit into several categories at once. Sure they can be athletes, but they still have to be sexy too. And they better still want to have a family, otherwise it is unnatural. Our society along with the sport media is still plagued by these ideas.

These ideas of what a woman should be and how we look at them got me thinking back to the Messner reading. In his writing Messner talked about his experiences watching children interact and discover the differences between what it means to be a boy and girl. So if the media expects women to be all these things (strong, sexy, motherly), it must mean that these attitudes are learned and adopted by women at some point. Although I suspect it is not necessarily at one single point in time, but rather a gradual "learning" process throughout the adolescence of young girls. Through the media, as well as the actions and experiences of adults around them, many girls today are subconsciously taught that they must fit these molds if they want to be accepted. There are many negative effects to this way of thinking, too many to go on about, but specifically this way we have of looking at women as female first and athlete second is almost sickening. The media will overlook a female athlete's accomplishments to dehumanize them and force them to become nothing more than a body. Hopefully one day things will change and players like Brittney Griner can be recognized more for their athletic achievements than their aesthetic appeal.

Kudos to ESPN...

Negative recruiting happens every day. It happens in different forms and in different contexts. But in women’s sports, namely basketball, there is a particular form of negative recruiting that seems to be happening more commonly than it should. Coaches are afraid of adding lesbian players to their team, plagued only by the “disease” of homophobia.

When I was looking for a post to blog about, this one stood out. After discussing basic ideologies and structures revo

lving around sport and gender specifically, it clicked in my mind. Power. It always goes back to power. Structures like these are put it in place by people of power to keep their status quo the same.

I found it particularly interesting when ESPN addressed the issues of head coaches telling recruits they are a “family” in that particular program. But what was funny, was how un-family-like their tendencies can be. The blog says that ESPN tries to “unpack the references to family and reveal them for the veiled homophobia they contain.” It’s a classic case of prejudice and discrimination. It doesn’t cause too much controversy because it’s not an issue that addresses such mass amounts of people, as it would with simple race or gender discriminations. But because it address homosexuality, such a taboo issue in women’s sports, it continues to fly under the radar and unpunished.

This homophobia is not only causing cases of negative recruiting, but affecting the game of basketball for women completely. She says that it's rumored that this homophobia is the reason why powerhouse women's college basketball teams such as Tennessee and Connecticut don't play head-to-head defense anymore. This mindset needs to be changed. It’s crossing all kinds of ethical lines and inhibiting female athletes from being treated as equals. Hopefully ESPN can be an advocate in making this change.

Title IX used as an excuse form?

Former women's head coach Jim Bolla's federal Title IX lawsuit was dismissed last month since the ongoing case in 2009. He claimed that the athletic director of the school terminated his position due to "gender equity," when the school states that the decision was "lawfully motivated by Bolla's abusive conduct towards players."

When reading this post in the Title IX blog I questioned the concept on whether Bolla was using the Title IX as an excuse for his dismissal, rather than looking at the truth and it is not appropriate to be "gently" tapping a player's "buttocks" with his foot. Though he may have concerns that the real reason he was fired was because of gender equity, that in fact the athletic department was not on the same page as Bolla was with his coaching methods.

Even the court was able to dismiss these charges as the former coach was unable to provide sufficient evidence that would support is allegations. Bolla brought up a past situation where the head football coach used the term "faggoty" while describing the opposing team's pre game ritual, but he was not fired after the comment. Though his comment did give a negative impact on UH, there was not any evidence on anything done wrong that would put a player in harms way, which is what Bolla demonstrated by kicking his player. There was motion of abusive actions towards players and whether he claims it was gently tapping their buttocks, it was with his foot. That would be a No No.

He may think that he losing his position is the University trying to retaliate against him, this him filing a lawsuit under the Title IX Act, but personally I feel that is him trying to escape the real reason of being fired and trying to put the blame and responsility on someone other than himself. I feel that many other situations similar to this have been happening to this one where coaches actions have been punished and they are searching for someone to blame, especially if they are in the women's field. Even men's programs that are being cut are saying the reason for cutting part of certain men's athletic prgrams is because of Title IX.

This is when I begin to question on whether or not this may be true, or is it just something that is there to take the fall.

Barkley on LGBT rights

NBA Hall of Famer Charles Barkley was recently very outspoken on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day regarding LGBT rights, as Dave Zirin wrote about in his recent column. Now some seemingly write Barkley off as an idiot, probably because he has a tendency to speak before thinking. For an example, see this video of Barkley perhaps mindlessly reading off a teleprompter “I’m a dumbass."

But in actuality, Barkley is just candid and honest — two qualities that seem to be pretty rare to find in people, especially when they’re TV personalities, too. Barkley had some interesting words in reply to Rev. Bernice King, a daughter of the late great civil rights activist. Seemingly opposite of how her father might act in the modern struggle for LGBT rights, Bernice has spoken outwardly against homosexuality.

From Dallas Voice’s Tammye Nash:

But Bernice King is an evangelical Christian in every sense of the word. In fact, she led an anti-gay-marriage march in December 2004 that culminated at her father’s gravesite.

According to Zirin, Barkley is on record as early as 2006 as saying he’s a advocate for gay marriage. And continuing that sort of stance, his words on MLK Day earlier this month were pure and pretty darn insightful:

"People try to make it about black and white. [But] he talked about equality for every man, every woman. We have a thing going on now, people discriminating against homosexuality in this country. I love the homosexuality people. God bless the gay people. They are great people.”

As Zirin points out, “I love the homosexuality people” may not be the most articulate way of saying things. Still, Barkley’s message is clearly heartfelt and also insightful — maybe surprisingly insightful to some

It’s been typically rare to see any heterosexual in sports that is particularly visible to be often speak out for LGBT rights. Perhaps more troublingly, more athletes and people in the sporting world have spoken out against LGBT rights rather than for it. I have to give Barkley recognition for speaking out on an issue that he had no obligation to speak out on at all.

Changing gears slightly, we briefly discussed in class how sport can serve as a sort of “mirror of society.” Being homosexual or bisexual or transgendered is still largely othered in the mainstream and in our everyday cultured in society. Sports is no different, with athletes and others involved in athletics drawing a litany of attention anytime they “come out of the closet” or the slightest rumor that asserts an athlete may be homosexual.

Note the story of former NFL player David Kopay, one of the first pro athletes to publicly announce that they were gay.

And again, note the story of John Amaechi, the first professional basketball player to announce their homosexuality. Amaechi was essentially on the cover of an issue of ESPN the Magazine only because he was gay. That’s not to say the piece wasn’t enlightening or couldn’t have been, it’s just funny that someone’s sexual orientation is grounds for a cover on a major sports magazine, in my opinion.

People still gasp at these instances and often think it’s unacceptable, which is sad, but that’s unfortunately the way a lot of society sees LGBT issues as well. Thus, I think this is a good example of sports reflecting society at-large.

UConn Women's Win Streak Coverage and Male Dominance

In Mary Hardin's post about the UConn girls basketball winstreak and the coverage it recieved, she talks about how women's sports go unseen and unappreciated by the media and sports followers. She also talks about how media coverage is dominated by men's sports and how the UConn story was mainly being covered because they were about to break a men's record. She explains that many people go on to blame the media for exercising these gender stereotypes and she agrees with them. She agrees that the media are the people who put out the coverage and because of male power and dominance in the sports world since it all began that it is hard to change how things have always been for the media and that men's sports are covered a ton more than womens. She goes on the express that the media coverage swing to covering more women's sports and achievements wont start with the media it will start with the women themselves and breaking more mens records and accomplishing great feats. I think that this post relates back to our reading of Center Snap by Messner. He explains that the parents of the kids at the soccer ceremony all think that their boys and girls are so different because the girls are simply drawing attention to themselves by singing a barbie song and doing "girl" things and the boys end up showing gender roles by dominating them and taking over there space and yelling at them until the parents have to split them up. I think this ties into Marie's post because male sports are dominating the media and the female sports are simply just doing "girl" things and they arent interesting enough to get the attention of male sports. On a personal note I think that women's sports today deserve more media coverage. Their games are just as interesting and some of the things they do are just as interesting to watch as men's sports. I thought the UConn run to the overall win streak was amazing and deserved to be followed since they had one fifty straight. I still believe that we need to praise what they did a lot more than we are. I mean the way competition is now their new record will probably stand for a long time and it deserves the same amount of attention as if a men's team would of broken it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNtImLkTGOs

The Use of Steroids in the Sports Industry

Melanie Formentin’s response in regard to sports journalist Tom Verducci’s visit to Penn State University discusses the main issues that were discussed during his visit. I found all the topics interesting yet the part that struck my thinking the most was the section on steroid use. For many Americans, sports, whether they play them or not, are a part of their lives. So many people get a sense of enjoyment from watching them and especially from seeing their favorite teams win. Not only do people develop a pool of favorite teams, but some have certain players on these teams that are their favorites and that become icons to them. Many athletes are looked up to by people of all ages. When issues arise, such as steroid use, many questions come up. What kind of message are these users sending to the youth who look up to them and hope to be similar to them someday? Should athletes under the influence of steroids still be allowed to play? Should these people be let into the hall of fame? And also, If these players are not allowed to play anymore then does it make sense to still let them into the hall of fame? These are questions that even I, someone who does not typically pay attention to these issues, had trouble forming an opinion on. It made me think: How much does the use of steroids actually alter a person’s ability to play better in any given sport? Aside from the questions regarding what the players’ consequences should be for these actions, I wonder how a majority of their fans react when these people are convicted of using sport enhancement drugs. Are a majority of these fans sticking by their icons and their performance regardless of substances that may have helped it, or when they are caught using these drugs are a majority of their fans turning on them. Although all these questions would probably be answered differently by a variety of people, and even I do not have a clear opinion on them, one thing to me is certain; Sport enhancement drugs, such as steroids, are an issue today that cause major controversy in the sports industry.

Non-Discrimination Policy at Belmont

Pat Griffin’s writing regarding Belmont University’s new sexual orientation policy struck a nerve with me. After reading over it, I thought to myself, “Is the board’s response really sincere?” It made me question their goals and their intentions in announcing this new policy. Pat discussed the idea that this could be a good thing for Belmont, especially with the portrayal of having the good Christian morals and values incorporated into their programs. But is it real? Why is it that this is just now getting put into the non-discrimination policy at the school? It makes me judge their capability to protect their students and staff at Belmont. Is it really to protect their staff and students? Or is it just a publicity stunt? I feel like they are just trying to cover themselves from lawsuits that could possibly arise due to this issue. When the school’s president was asked about the new policy and if Belmont would allow openly gay people to work at the university, his answer was hesitant. But why is it that their soccer coach Lisa Howe was let go once she became open about her sexuality? What does that mean? It makes me wonder to what extent will the policy be enforced. What kind of message are they sending to the youth, and the community surrounding their university? I think that this subject is becoming more and more acknowledged in today’s society, especially with many of the tragic deaths that have happened in the past at other universities involving students taking their lives because of discrimination due to their sexual orientation. If the university wants their policy to be viewed sincerely then they need to be prepared to follow through with it.

Does "Family" Really Know Best?

The Title IX Blog posts about Iowa State coach, Bill Fennelly recruiting athletes to join his team because he says they are "family-oriented." The underlying factor in this article was the "family" being homophobic. People have used this kind of negative recruiting for years and have put it on their team that having a homosexual on it would make them uncomfortable around each other and, therefore, lower their performance. I truly believe that in order for a team to succeed, it does need to work together and be like a family. Everyone needs to stick together and accept who each and every person is, even if that is a homosexual. What if a coach was trying to persuade an athlete to come to his or her team and said, "Come here, we're like a family, in that, we are homophobic," to a homosexual athlete? No one wants to come home to a family dinner and feel unwelcome and same goes with a team, so in a sense, negative recruiting can definitely backfire.

There are many assumptions about women athletes being lesbians or bisexual, especially in sports like softball and basketball. I grew up participating in a sport that is generally thought of as a male sport, taekwondo. The kind of taekwondo that I did was not just self defense and learning moves, I was extremely competitive and all I did was fight. Olympic style fighting in taekwondo is very intense and all athletes, even females, are insanely tough. During my years at home with my team, it was like a family even though taekwondo is an individual sport and we don't all work together in the ring. Everyone is there for support and we all want what is best for our teammates, it didn't matter who they were outside of the gym.

I think it all comes down to insecurity. Coaches use negative recruiting because of the insecurity they may have in their team (or self) because if the coach really thought that school was the best place to play, he or she shouldn't have to bring down other teams to make them look good. Same goes for the stereotypes of female athletes being women, men were just feeling insecure because a woman could do what they could so these women just had to be lesbians. As time passes and our society grows (fingers crossed that it actually does), I think that female athletes and homosexuals will continue to become more accepted. We still have a long way to go but judging by how far we have come, I think we will get there.

Media and Woman's Basketball Coverage

I read the Sports, Media & Society blog and focused on the post about the UCONN women's team, because of how historic of an accomplishment it was in all sports — not just in women's sports. Nowadays all ESPN cares about is the Miami Heat and Brett Favre. They never give any credit to woman's sports, the only time they mention them is when something major happens. Well a 90 game winning streak was major, in fact it was the longest winning streak in men's or women's basketball history.
The fact is there are a few reasons, at least in my opinion, why women's basketball isn't as popular. The first major reason is that there is no advertising or marketing set up for it AT ALL. This is why several WNBA teams have folded, and how the WNBA generates no revenue. WNBA players make an average of $35,000 a year while the average salary in the NBA is over $3 million. The women's professional players often play the WNBA season in the summer, then go overseas to play in a foreign league.
The only time someone hears about women's basketball will be in the summer, when the playoffs are shown a little bit on ESPN2 or during March Madness. Even then I can only name a handful of WNBA players and even less college players.
The perception of women's basketball is that they are unathletic, tiny and not exciting to watch. True it is much different from men's basketball where violent dunking is the norm, but women's basketball is executed by precision passing and shooting.
I went to my first woman's basketball game tonight as Iowa took on the No. 10 ranked Michigan State Spartans and it was great. Carver Hawkeye Arena was filled with purely senior citizens, there was no one in the student section, but the game was still excellent.
The reading by Birrell and Theberge addresses the popularity of men's and women's basketball, but until major media networks such as ESPN and CBS and FOX give the NCAA tournament serious coverage for the women and not just the men, then women's basketball will always be second fiddle.

College sports evolution

There is no doubting that college athletics has blossomed into a complex, billion-dollar industry. After reading the post "College athletics reform and where it should go" from the blog Sports, Media & Society, I began thinking about the issue of money influencing college sports.

Author of the post, Melanie Formentin, talks about a lecture given to Penn State students by Ronald A. Smith. An interesting point that Smith brought up was that for 60 years, the NCAA didn’t allow freshmen to compete in varsity athletics. The rule worked for that long, Smith argues, so why did the NCAA do away with it? Recently, many athletes leave school early to pursue professional careers where they can earn money for their services. This has made the issue of integrity and loyalty into a heated discussion.

I alsfo agree with Smith’s point that the NCAA is very slow to change its ways, and only does so after pressure from outside sources.

What really interested me from this post was the discussion of paying athletes. This is a debate that is currently going on in a lot of forums, including the sports media. Personally, I think it is a very slipper slope once the first athlete becomes legally paid for his or her participation. Since when is a free education not enough? I know these athletes put in a large amount of time to their respective sport, but no one is forcing them to do it. And sure they are making their universities boatloads of money, but schools will always be willing to find someone who will play for free.

Let’s say a school pays a starter on the football team a certain amount of money. Well, how much should a reserve player earn? How much should an athlete from a non-revenue sport, such as tennis, make? That’s what I mean by a slippery slope. Athletes get enough advantages and recognition for what they do already, they don’t need to be paid for the performance.

The reason I love college sports so much is for the tradition, the pageantry. My grandpa played basketball for the University of Iowa, and he talks about having to play on the freshman while he adjusted to the college lifestyle. He also tells me how back then, athletes weren’t worried about money and other temptations. They played for the privilege of representing the name on the front of their jersey and doing so in a respectable way. I understand that college athletics have become more and more commercialized over time, and that’s natural, but I don’t necessarily like the direction it is heading.

By Robbie Lehman

Women, Sport, and Media

After reading the blog regarding media and the UConn women’s basketball winning streak in the Sports, Media and Society section, I was reminded of the arguments made in the Birrell and Theberge reading assigned for class. The blog discusses the media’s portrayal, or lack thereof, of the recent UConn women’s winning streak. The blogger argues that we shouldn’t blame the media for the lack of excitement and importance surrounding the event. Instead, the blog suggests, we should blame society and the cultural constraints we put on gender and gender identity. That sport is an activity made to promote ideal masculinity and women are inferior and marginalized in this area. Birrell and Theberge argue these relations between male dominance and women are actively challenged and sometimes even transformed. I believe we are progressing in this area in sport and feel women athletes are becoming more recognized and given more power in today’s society. The battle for recognition and respect will continue in the years to come but we are progressing in the right direction. I agree with the blog post in the sense it is not entirely the media’s fault on whether or not the winning streak was given the coverage it deserves, but more on the ideologies of the public and their view on women and sport. Once we transform and better develop the concept of women athletics, the media will also conform to the wants of its audience and give more praise and attention to women’s sports. This is not an easy task and the connection between women athletes and the media will take some time to create a positive relationship.

What "family" really means

When reading the blog “On homophobia and recruiting”, I was completely off guard bout what it was about. While first reading the quote from Iowa State coach Bill Fennelly about family, I was in complete agreement with him. Being on a collegiate team, I am so thankful for the girls that are on it because they truly are my best friends and people I definitely call my second family. Ironically, I was on a team at Iowa State my freshman year and cannot say the same thing about it, which is one reason why I left, so I understand the importance of a team being family-oriented. Not in any way did I see this as any negative recruiting and I assume that there are completely different situations than I experience on my team.
While there are so many stereotypes about women who are athletes and certain female sports, this article opens up my eyes to a whole new light. Unfortunately, our society has made sport to be male dominant and with that ideology there is a lot of negative beliefs about women in sport. Women in these power sports are seen as breaking out of their shell and leaning towards a more masculine personality and with this comes the stereotype of female athletes and coaches(such as in basketball and softball) are lesbians.
Because this ideology has been instilled in society, the media and the way these sports and athletic programs are portrayed enhance it. An athlete’s personal background should not be important because he or she is talented; it isn’t because they are gay or straight that makes the play the way they do. But these athletes and coaches also shouldn’t feel ashamed of the way they are and feel like they have to hide it or risk anything.
A team is not about whom it is made up of, but more about what. The values and talents and attitudes of these athletes and coaches are what helps blossom a team into a family.

Homophobia and Negative Recruiting

When I first read the Title IX blog about homophobia and negative recruiting I could not help but think back to the Birrell and Theberge article that we read for class. I do not know a lot about the inner workings of college recruiting but, if I had to guess, I would say that negative recruiting, in one form or another, is pretty common. I fell as if an emphasis on winning and winning now is more prevalent than ever before. Because of this newly emphasized view towards winning now, the importance of recruiting has subsequently skyrocketed. When a coach will do almost anything to win, negative recruiting involving homophobic views may rear its ugly head.

The Birrell and Theberge article talked about how some men viewed homosexuality in women's sports as a method to keep women in sports to a minimum. The article also goes onto talk about the view of lesbian women versus real women (heterosexual women) as if they were somehow different in all aspects. These negative views towards homosexual women in sport, that have been portrayed by the media, reinforce the effectiveness of homophobic negative recruiting and also oppresses homosexual women even further than they already are. Because of the representation of homosexual women as different or as worse than regular women, the use of homophobia in recruiting has become an all too familiar tool used by women's college coaches throughout the country. It has also caused homosexual women to become fearful of admitting their sexual preferences. Just like the race problem that plagued American sports for decades, headway must be made in terms of making it socially acceptable to be homosexual. It is wrong for athletes to live and play in fear just because of their sexual preferences. A good first step in making homosexuality acceptable in society and in sport would be to stop the use of homophobia in negative recruiting.

No Physical Differences

When people think of the word family they often associate words of comfort, loving, accepting and protection. These are just a few words that people would describe a typical family. When these words are brought up in a sport context, I wonder how they have any business being there in the first place. When reading the Title IX blog, it makes me realize how most people don't realize that the choice of words they use can have some hidden or subconscious meaning. Some people don't realize how much it hurts others but then there are people that but certain connotations behind there meaning and the only people that recognize it are the people being hurt. Discrimination where it is directly or indirectly is harmful. Discrimination against someone because of who they are and who they choose to be and wrong and should not be accepted or even allowed continuing to happen. Discrimination against people because of their sexuality is the same thing as discriminating against people that have big ears. It is a nonsense and ignorant way of thinking. How the game is all of a sudden is no longer about the game but it is about the morals and attitudes that the athlete will face. Yes I know that when athletes are recruited they are recruited to the school and the way of life but why is it so heavily emphasizes. Shouldn't it be about how that school's program can help the athlete achieve athleticism in their pursuits or to become a better play and lover of their craft? How we are all of a sudden as a society are pushing these morals upon athletes? Why are we trying to control people with our ideologies, isn't the United States all about freedom but it seems to me that are we are doing is imprisoning these people, we are forcing them to live a lie. In an article by ESPN, they explain how coaches use homophobia as a way to recruit players to their teams. They imply that other schools do not uphold the same values that their school does and that they are like a “family”. This is a form of negative recruiting by implying other schools do not have these same values and do not provide a good place for that athlete to grow as an individual. Homophobia in sport has been around for a while and continues to plague many athletes and coaches alike. Many have left programs, forced to leave from all the harassment and negative feelings they are felt towards themselves. They have been hurt by doing something they love. So I ask myself why does being someone that identifies as a homosexual have anything to do with sport. Do people think it helps them run faster, jump higher, or shoot better? It doesn’t there is nothing physically different from a homosexual to a heterosexual in regards to physical abilities so then again I ask why does it matter? Why do people care? It basically comes down to people not accepting people from who they are and not putting aside differences for same love of the game.

Playing Nice--Growing up as Girls and Boys

The blog post from the Title IX website about the prosecution of a University of Colorado football player for sexual assault, and the context of the other sexual assaults from other Colorado football players in year’s past, raised some questions in me that correlate with the Messner reading we read earlier. This post talks about how the University of Colorado was almost forced to take steps to punish the former football player because of previous strikes against him personally, and because the football program at Colorado has had a history of sexual assaults to young women, most notably one two female students who were harassed in 2001 at a football recruiting party. After just re-reading the Messner article, and then stumbling upon this post from January 14th, it really got me thinking about how what we learn as young kids translates into how we act as young adults and into our adult lives. The scenario the Messner presented at the beginning of his piece talked about how 4 and 5 year old boys were taunting 4 and 5 year old girls for their Barbie float they made for a soccer parade. When they were not being heard by the girls, they began using body language to get their point across, running at the girls and forcing them to listen. Parents eventually broke it up, but not before they allowed the boys to continuously taunt the young girls. I would be curious to find out if this type of behavior, and the fact that the parents recognized how different boys and girls are, translates into the behavior we see with sexual harassment and assault of college students. Football players at large university have the stereotype of being the big shots on campus, and essentially being able to get away with a lot. Does this mindset that they possibly learned at a young age force them to think they should have whatever they want when they want it, even if it means using physical force to get it? I think it could be easily tied to the fact that boys in some cases have been taught to feel superior to girls, and therefore cloud what is right and wrong in their minds. In my own experiences as a girl, I have always been proud to “beat a boy,” but a lot of times was taunted for it. I will never forget when I was in 1st grade and I beat a 2nd grade boy in a race on the playground while wearing a dress. I remember feeling elated that I had just out-run not only a boy, but an older boy. Yet I was somewhat made fun of because when I was running, my dress flew up a few times, and that wasn’t ladylike according to my girl friends. It is sad to know that even at such a young age, praise for beating a boy at something did not come without some expense. I think that this can translate to the issue of sexual harassment in college and the idea that we are taught from the time we are even just 4 years old how boys and girls are supposed to act and who has the upper hand. These ideas are taught separately, whether you’re a boy or a girl, and can lead to the wrong ideas about how to treat one another and play nice.