atletas embarazadas

my usual athletics consultant, k, sent me a link today about ncaa athletes that become pregnant.
and i, of course, have many thoughts.
first, i have to say that the glaring problem with the article is the complete absence of reproductive justice discussion. sure, i can imagine why, but there are a variety of topics approached in the article that require mention of rj for thorough discussion.

the very first paragraph begins, "The timing wasn't the greatest," bringing to mind my (mis) quoted statement from the chron, "I think that abortion rights are central to women being able to control their own lives." Followed by (surprisingly appropriately named) Junk's appraisal that my comment "implies that women are neither free nor equal citizens unless they can legally end a pregnancy." And her assessment is pretty right on.

I do believe that a woman who is unable to decide when, where, and how to get pregnant is neither free nor equal. The Daily Herald article illustrates both of these aspects. First, women who are not free to choose between abortion and a child are not free from several constraints. They are not free from biology. They are not free from economic consequences. They are not free from social consequences. They are not free to pursue a future of their choosing. But, by this argument really no one is "free," we all make choices within constraints not of our choosing (to loosely paraphrase Marx). And since what sort of "free" is not specified in Junk's article, I'll move on to the second point.

Women are not equal citizens if they are unable to choose. Now, since I've been reading a lot of Altusser, Ong, and other such citizenship theorists lately, I should mention that here I use the term "citizenship" to mean the full rights associated with being an official member of a group. I do not mean mere "belonging," nor do I mean simply the right to vote. Citizenship is hailed by the state and ensured through Ideological State Apparatuses. It includes the full protection of the state, the right to participation in the public sphere, and all benefits associated with membership. And it is not "merely cultural" (Judith Butler, 1997), but implies real material consequences. In the case of pregnant athletes these consequences are the scholarships they receive to attend school. When these scholarships are taken away, at best they are left with paying tuition. At worst, these women will be financially forced to quit school, and may also miss out on a promising professional athletic career (and I'm now resisting the urge to switch gears and launch into a critique of gender inequality in professional athletics).

Of course the consequences for women are only one half of the equality equation (haha). As the article mentions, many college athletes have children. While an undergrad myself, one of nu's star football players was the father of no less than 3 children. he went on to the nfl. Even one child for a female athlete, on the other hand, would not only preclude playing in what could be a pivotal season to be able to play professional sports. Perhaps I verge too closely to equating pregnancy with injury, which in some ways may be appropriate but from a legal standpoint gets, well, "sticky."

It is also important to note that members of a Clemson team did terminate pregnancy out of fear of losing scholarships. Now at risk of sounding like I'm anti-choice (bear with me here), it is an atrocity that a person would be compelled to terminate a pregnancy for such reasons. Of course, it happens all the time, and there are plenty of women who simply cannot afford a(nother) child and terminate pregnancies. Which points to the vast array of underlying problems, with healthcare systems, welfare states, maternity/paternity leaves, day care systems, and plenty of other institutions. All this is simply to say, that perhaps de Beauvoir was too quick to assert that "biology is not destiny." Unfortunately the current state of reproductive justice and the aforementioned institutions do leave women unequally equipped to claim the rights associated with citizenship.

Alright, now...moving on. In large part I agree with the article, but I find it too apologetic. Aside from her complete sidestep of rj issues, Babcock McGraw says she can "see both sides." Female athletes engaging in unprotected sex are being irresponsible, and this behavior is equated with drinking and driving or snowboarding. Sure, unprotected sex is never a good idea, but if female athletes are held responsible for such acts to an extent that they are dropped from rosters (and funding), to maintain equality, male athletes who father children should be held to the same standard. If we regard athletes as having a primary commitment to their institution (as the author implies), a child constitutes a breach of that contract whether the fetus is physically growing in the athletes womb or simply takes half of its dna from the athlete. Any distinction between to the two privileges male-boded athletes (as if they're not privileged enough). If athletes are dropped from rosters for "irresponsibility" this should include all bodily injury or change, drugs or drinking, or anything else that may get the athlete into legal trouble (even a misdemeanor arrest). Isn't this why we have Title IX?

the espnU website has a nice write up of outside the lines that includes a little video.

Ok, so now i'm just rambling on and i've spent too much time writing this instead of my paper on german anthropology. ah, procrastination...