i got my first comment about a blog post from someone that i didn't know! or at least i don't think i know him.
scott commented on my recent post on michelle wie and the lpga. his comment, although well thought out, is completely wrong. but that is totally beside the f-ing point. this is unequivocal proof that someone out there is reading. i can't even begin to tell you what a gratifying feeling it is to know that someone, albeit probably purely by accident, turned to me for my opinion. a canadian no less! good god, we live on such a small planet.
anyways, scott if you're out there, keep commenting, i'll start reading your blog, and we can help me get on my way to the senior reporter for rolling stone magazine. thank you.
in response to scott's comment, which says something to the effect that race is not a factor in some of the sniping about michelle wie, or at least not a big as a factor as i seem to be implying. i'll concede that race is not the only factor in the situation, but i still think it's a huge factor. i think at least in american culture, we love youth. anytime kids do something kick ass, we love it, as long as they do it within the framework of patriarchy/whiteness/westernism/etc. to get stupid sociological on you, the negative response to michelle wie is a result of the intersection of masculinity/race/age/sports. i know that other phenoms have recieved negative attention, but i think that it seems that the ones that receive negative reaction are usually more often not white than white. look at when the williams' sisters started out in tennis. all anyone could talk about was how unlady like they were and look at their domineering father. of course by now, we've realized how much ass they kick and how incredible a body that serena has, but when they started out, it wasn't about their skill, which in the pure theoretical sense is supposed to be the measure by which we evaluate athletes, no instead it was about their failure to adhere to the rules, which i say are derived to preserve existing power heirarchies, blah blah blah. of course, tiger didn't face nearly as much scrutiny, but he had the force of nike and the fact that he was a male (something people don't talk enough about) behind him to even out the criticism. the biraciality didn't hurt either.
so i guess i'm saying that scott has forced me to refine my argument somewhat. there are a variety of factors that go into villifying an athlete, especially by her peers. i still think that in this case, race is a factor, because michelle wie is not adhering to the docile obedient asian women stereotype.
on another note, teaching stats class is an enourmous time suck, and that is why i haven't been able to post on such topics as bill cosby's comments at a recent PUSH coaltion meeting, marlon brando's death, or coach K going (or not going) to the lakers. of course i have opinions about this, but like i said, teaching keeps me extremely busy. and i've learned that retro-blogging is somewhat missing the point of blogging.
but thanks to scott the canadian, i think i have a renewed energy for the blog. i'll keep blogging, and all of you reading, please please comment.
in the meantime, here's your fun link for the day: esquire's brutally honest personals.