Part of the enthusiasm that accompanies college football is the mass marketing of the game. ESPN is a primary driving force behind the widespread accessibility and popularity of the sport. ESPN's flagship college football preview show is called "College Gameday" and features analysts, former players and talking heads discussing all the games for the week and addressing special interest stories. The content of the show rarely raises above grandstanding and analysis - and it truly is one of the best examples of how media can promote a sport and expand an audience base.
Each week College Gameday picks a new venue - they visit a campus where a big game will be played that day. The show is a university marketing office's dream (so many eyes on our institution!) and appears to help spread the word about great college towns (just ask Fargo!), but one of the traditions associated with these campus visits is a nightmare for those concerned with male college student development.
*Photo courtesy of Bleacher Report
I tuned into College Gameday this morning with both of my boys at my side. My eyes were immediately drawn to a big hand-drawn sign that read "Skov Eats Luna Bars." Shayne Skov is a linebacker for the Stanford Cardinal and is a player who wears his hyper-masculinity on his sleeve while playing football (just do a Google image search of his name). The sign made me wonder what the intent of that sign was. Perhaps this is my own assumptions about what the creator of that sign meant but Luna Bars are described as "the whole nutrition bar for women." So on it's face this sign is a joke (and not even a very good one) attempting to insinuate that Skov isn't a "real man" and he isn't a real "tough-guy" and that he likely eats nutrition bars for women and that somehow makes him less of a man. (Note: I realize that the sign was just a lame joke, but stick with me... it gets better. Or worse).
The signs are a tradition for the program. Fans show up at an insanely early hour to line up and be the fans in the background while the show is broadcast live. Fans are encouraged to bring signs to hold (as seen behind the set in the picture above). The next sign I saw on screen said "Hogan cried when the Jonas Brothers broke up." Again, a relatively unfunny joke about Stanford quarterback Kevin Hogan and how he is such the opposite of the hyper-masculine football player that he likely shed tears when the popular boy band broke up. Okay, so these two examples are obnoxious to those of us who care about the portrayal of masculinity... so where's the BAD stuff, right? I noticed a graphic in the upper corner of the screen directing viewers to search "#GamedaySigns" on Twitter to see more. I wish I had not searched...
The two examples I saw online were "Stanford girls are so bad, Tiger left college early," a joke aimed at Tiger Woods' apparent lack of moral fiber and commentary on how even a womanizer like Tiger couldn't find enough attractive women at Stanford. Distasteful at best and glorifying careless promiscuous behavior by college men at worst. Judging by the number of re-tweets, this joke about jock culture and masculinity was pretty funny to a lot of people.
The other example made me quit looking for more. A picture of a sign read "Jonathan Martin sits when he pees." Jonathan Martin is the Stanford alum who is at the center of one of the most public conversations we've likely ever had about bullying. The alleged incidents and ensuing investigations have made national headlines and have rocked perceptions of the National Football League and how pervasive hazing and bullying are in locker rooms and in football organizations. Martin was the target of alleged bullying by a teammate and has repeatedly had his manhood questioned by media, fellow football players and even teammates. In a case that has forced us to examine what we mean when we say "football culture" and how we either defend or castigate those who perpetuate that phrase, to poke fun at Martin's masculinity is shameful. (Note: I do understand that ESPN could control whether or not that sign is displayed and they chose to allow it - but we should also remember ESPN has much to gain by keeping the drama of the Martin story alive as it produces special segments and regular updates about it).
I recognize that ESPN is not responsible for the creation of individual signs nor are they obligated to completely censor any sign that could be of questionable content (after all - some signs are legitimately funny and are much better than seeing hundreds of plain signs that just say "Go team"). But where ESPN does have culpability in the perpetuation of faux-masculinity and hyper-masculinity is in allowing certain signs (like the one targeting Jonathan Martin) through the door and onto our screens.
Producers and talking heads also are responsible for the messages spoken during the program. A few weeks ago one analyst (David Pollack) said women should not be allowed on the newly-formed college football playoff selection committee. The woman who is on the committee? Condoleeza Rice. One of the most powerful and respected women in our country and someone with a deep knowledge of athletics. What was her flaw that makes her incapable of serving on the committee? She's a woman, and according to Pollack there clearly is no way a woman - who never played the sport at any level - could possibly understand this complicated and macho game. Those who know the game well must still wear jockstraps to work and still chest-bump in front of the water cooler at the office, right David? Pat Forde from Yahoo! Sports wrote an entertaining column about his feelings regarding the display of male chauvinism. Pollack has since come out and tried to clarify his statements, but likely at the advice of ESPN and his agent. How do we expect fans and our college-aged men to know better about how damning these portrayals of masculinity can be when the talking heads are sharing those beliefs?
Messner & Solomon (2007) wrote that a sport like football is so pervasive that it embodies the hegemonic definition of masculinity. Our views of masculinity are shaped by the sport even though a vast portion of the population does not adhere to that definition. This is where the stereotyping and proliferation of skewed definitions of masculinity provide a troubling lens through which to view the sport, particularly on our college campuses. Davis & Laker (2009) suggest ways to address the pervasive stereotypical definitions of masculinity among college-aged men by asking a few important questions of administrators: What groups of men garner the most attention on campus? What images of men and masculinity are most prevalent on campus? What groups appear to be marginalized (and then understanding how the definitions of masculinity between those groups differ)? How can we re-vision our understanding of a sport that creates the dominant definition of masculinity for us and then use it to create a more inclusive definition of the term?
Football is a great game. Football fields and locker rooms can be grounds for tremendous learning, cultivation of brotherhood and friendship and the development of vital leadership skills for our young men. The perpetuation of stereotypes and misconceptions of masculinity do no justice to the notion that healthy ideas about what it means to be a man can come from this sport. College Gameday isn't helping us explain the role of masculinity in sports to its viewing audience, but men who play the game and those who support it and work with college-aged men who play it can have conversations around these topics. We can correct and re-direct about skewed definitions of masculinity. I will continue to feed my children's enthusiasm for these sacred Saturdays and talk to them about what it means to be a real man and why there's value and honor in playing (and watching) this game.
Tweet Follow @pottscharlie
