Funny how Ultimate Frisbee is filed under “Fashion & Style: Fitness” when women play it, but under “New Jersey: Sport” when men do. Or just in “Sports.”
Glad the Times is covering women in sports, but really, why put them in the traditional “lady-stuff” section?
{ 7 comments }
That is crazy! Especially since Ultimate is one of the few sports that is also played co-ed at all levels. How would they report the co-ed games, I wonder? I also like the attention paid to the women’s and men’s attire while playing. I guess that makes it fit the fashion section.
It is just “ultimate”, not “ultimate frisbee”. You don’t even play ultimate with a frisbee, which is a brand name. The official disc when I was in college was a discraft one.
In any case, agreed that that is odd placement in the paper. Not sure what they were thinking there. Maybe just written by someone who writes for that section? The women’s team at my college were hard core. They’d go to tournaments with seven women total. No subs.
I think we all know the answer. Women don’t read the sports section. Am I right? Am I right? Who is with me….
What do you meaqn no one? ;)
Although, in fairness to the Times, the fist story is a more of a feature, the second story is locative and centered around the New Jersey birthplace of the sport, and the third story, the one in sports, covers both men’s and women’s ultimate.
I’m an Ultimate afficianado, and that’s some bullshit categorization. Women’s Ultimate is hardcore and intense, and definitely a legitimate, competitive sport.
Argggh…that drives me crazy. My sister-in-law is a world class ultimate player (although I’ve heard rumors that at 44 she may actually retire from active playing). She’s one of the oldest women actively playing in non-senior leagues. She travels all over the world for tournaments. Her team has won the gold at the world championships several times. For them to lump accomplishments like that under “fashion and style” make me so mad I could just spit.
The main thing that bugs me is that the Times has a features section they call the “Style” pages in the first place. This is the real problem. Since features that anyone can relate to end up in the “fashion” section (or maybe it’s just that, since fashion articles also go in the “Style” page, this obscures the intent of whoever decided to call it that), why not just change the name to “Living” or “Features” or something? Why the need to maintain the vestigial “Women’s Page”?
Not to mention that, since 9 out of 10 times their sports articles are features, wah-huh? For that matter, 99% of everything not in the front section is a feature article of some sort. Why not just divvy them up in a gender neutral manner?
Comments on this entry are closed.