Some more thoughts on pink locker rooms

My colleague EBuz has really hit a sensitive nerve with her criticism of Coach Hayden Fry's tradition of painting visiting locker rooms pink.  As I noted, the appalling nature of much of the vitriol directed at her really sickens me -- whether one agrees with her or not, it's disgusting for people to wish for her to get AIDS and die.  Personally, I would have simply deleted all such comments had it been my blog.

At this point, sifting through the numerous comments, the substantive criticisms of EBuz's argument fall into the following categories:

(1) Hayden Fry was a great man who invited the first African-American to play in the conference.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that EBuz is correct about the misogynistic/homophobic reasons for painting opposing locker rooms pink.  (I realize that many people disagree on that point, which would be a legitimate basis for not being persuaded by EBuz's argument.)  If so, Fry gets credit for integrating the football team, but why should that then immunize him from criticism on other fronts?  For example, former Chief Justice Earl Warren is lionized among the liberal community because of the landmark decisions issued by his Court (such as Brown v. Board of Education, Baker v. Carr, and others), but he also played a significant role in the shameful internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.  Are we forbidden from criticizing Warren about the internment merely because he did other "good" things?

(2) Doesn't EBuz have more important things to do than to waste time on a trivial matter like this?

State 29 suggests that EBuz could be complaining about the scholarship athletes living in low-income housing.  An anonymous commenter on EBuz's blog suggests that EBuz should be fighting for equal funding for women's sports teams.  And so.

But this news story quotes EBuz as having taken just 10 minutes to respond to a call from a reporter.  It's not as if this is a time-consuming crusade of hers.  And as for spending time on more "important" matters, EBuz's research in fact does concern gender parity in sports, among other things.

I wonder if these commenters would say that Rosa Parks' quest to sit wherever she wanted on the bus was also just a trivial matter?

(3) EBuz has selectively and misleadingly quoted from Fry's autobiography.

Here's what EBuz wrote:

By one account, Fry was a former psych major who understood the psychological effect of pink as a "calming" color. The more plausible explanation is Fry's own. His autobiography reports that he chose the pink walls because "pink is often found in girl's bedrooms, and because of that some consider it a sissy color." Hayden Fry, A High Porch Picnic (1999).

I think the root issue here is whether Fry had a single reason (the "sissy color") or multiple reasons (the "sissy color" and the calming effect).  EBuz presents it as the former, whereas many long-time Iowans say it's the latter.  I haven't read Fry's autobiography, so I can't say which I think is right, but of course I know EBuz (and her scholarly ethics) and am therefore inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt.

This isn't a legal matter, of course, but it's worth noting that in sex discrimination cases, having a mixed-motive does not absolve the defendant of liability.  All the plaintiff has to do is show that the illegitimate motive was a motivating factor (not even a substantial factor).

* * *

So we are down to, how plausible is it that today, someone who didn't read Fry's autobiography would view the pink locker rooms as imparting a misogynistic and homophonic message?  Ebuz's argument is that it's apparent; others could, I think, reasonably disagree.  That strikes me as the legitimate ground on which to debate EBuz, and I'm pretty sure that she would welcome civil debate on the point.

Comments

[EBuz]

Thanks Tung. I wanted also to point on the "wasting time/taxpayer dollars" point that most importantly, the University has asked for University employees to attend the public forum on Tuesday to discuss the gender equity component on the NCAA accreditation report. It was in that context that I prepared my comment on the issue and that forum to which my efforts are directed.

In short, I was asked for my opinion by the University. So it is not beyond the capacity of my job to offer my opinion in response.

[SB]

Here's the relevant quote in full:

"One thing we didn't paint black and gold was the stadium's visitor's locker room, which we painted pink. It's a passive color, and we hoped it would put our opponents in a passive mood. Also, pink is often found in girls' bedrooms, and because of that some consider it a sissy color."

What do you think of Ebuz's scholarly ethics now?

I'm very disappointed that Ebuz, a professor of law, would intentionally do something like this.

The quote can be found at page 102 of Hayden Fry's autobiography, and is viewable on Amazon (free registration required) here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1582610339/ref=sib_rdr_prev1_102/104-5988870-6468739?%5Fencoding=UTF8&keywords=%22pink%20locker%20room%22&p=S034&twc=1&checkSum=KM7XJVLQTR1WpuRJZBIMxUmpuTtM99TkUHtvIpAnR8I%3D#reader-page

[Gaulding]

Regarding the critique of EBuz's "scholarly ethics," give me a break. (With all due respect!) As Tung points out, a bad motive is a bad motive, regardless of whether it is mixed in with acceptable motives. Fry's autobiography, which EBuz quotes, makes clear that he thought that the PLR was a cool idea at least in part because it implicitly labeled the other team "girls" and "sissies." The "at least in part" is enough for me.

And do not forget that Fry's motivations are just the backstory here, anyway. The real question is whether it was a good idea to carry on the tradition as part of the renovation of Kinnick Stadium. I'm on record as saying "no," and I will stand by that, along with Erin.

[SB]

Any scholar should always cite in full. Ebuz didn't. Her argument may still stand, but every Iowa law student reading these blogs will take home the message that it is acceptable to selectively quote from source material.

The pink locker room is a red herring. Collegiate football is a barbaric sport that glorifies physical violence. The players receive preferential treatment because their activity is lucrative. Then, when some of the players abuse their privileges, either by poor academic performance or by off the field behavior, the University looks the other way. It's a shameful.

Singling out the pink locker room misses the entire point. The entire sport, as it is currently practiced, is objectionable from a feminist viewpoint. Changing the locker room color to a neutral color is just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

When a feminist scholar objects to only the pink locker room, the message received is that everything else regarding collegiate football at Iowa is acceptable from a feminist perspective.

[Tung Yin]

Any scholar should always cite in full.

SB, I think you mean that any scholar should "quote all relevant parts." EBuz certainly *cited* the relevant source, allowing anyone to check up on her, as you did.

As to the single motive versus mixed motive, I probably would have worded it a little differently than EBuz did, saying something like "Fry was clearly motivated in part by sexist and perhaps homophobic feelings." But I cut EBuz some slack here. First, it's a blog, not an academic article, and so there is a certain degree of editing/cite checking that's absent. Second, I think if you read more of Fry's book beyond the part you cite, you get the sense that Fry delighted in the fact that opposing coaches, if they noticed the colors, would get upset. Now maybe that's because the other coaches were also psych majors who realized the calming effect pink would have, but maybe it's because the other coaches didn't like the "sissy" color. . . .

As to your larger feminist critique of college football, I'm not sure if EBuz agrees with you. But assuming that she does, I don't see why she has to take on every feminist fight just because she takes on one. I'd guess that she stands about a million times greater chance of getting the locker room color changed than she does of getting UI to drop football.

Professor Yin,

RE: cite vs quote. I agree.

I agree that blogs do not have to meet the same standard as a more professional writing. But, I think Ebuz is playing a little fast with the rules. She is a professor of law teaching first year law students, and she knows those students are reading her blog.

Everyone makes mistakes when they write. That's not new. I'll have no idea if she takes the time to do this, but she has a wonderful teachable moment here when she can show her students the right and wrong day to quote source material.

RE: football at Iowa, I'll expand a little bit. If Ebuz is concerned about the implicit message behind a pink locker room, how would she feel about what is actually being said in the *IOWA* locker room or on the Iowa practice field about the opposing team. I'm sure everyone reading this can imagine that it is much more offensive than some pink paint.

Changing the pink locker room won't change a thing. It's a symptom, not a cause. Want to get rid of mysogynism and violence? Then stop activities that celebrate it. Repainting the locker room will just make us feel good about ourselves and sweep everything under the rug.

[EBuz]

Thanks for the feedback, SB. I'm glad you are such a careful cite-checker.

But to me, the "passive" rationale was bound up in the same gendered overtones as "sissy" and "girls bedrooms" so I was reading this particular passage as proposing one, unified, rationale -- read the word "passive" as rape-able, dominable, emasculated, etc. In other words, in my humble opinion, "passive" was just one more piece of the gendered rationale that included the "sissy" and "girlie" quotes. I was sure to mention the separate, alternative, psychology rationale, but I did not attribute that to this passage of the autobiography.

But as Gaulding points out, whether he's on the record
or not with mixed or singular motives is not at all the point. To me, the point is how the message is received,and I believe the message appears as a "sissy" or "girlie man" type insult.

[SB]

That's an interesting interpretation.

If the point is how the message is received, then what are we to make of the fact that the message isn't perceived uniformly?

Over the many years, it appears to have bothered some coaches, and not others. Bothered some players, and not others. Whose feelings are more valid?

A significant part of competition (and not just football) is about intimidating the other opponent. Intimidation is classic alpha-male behvior.

Is a sprinter who stares another sprinter in the eye and says at the starting line, "I'm going to crush you" guilty of the same type of trespass as the pink locker room?

Both are alpha-male modes of intimidation. The pink locker room is even more subtle, it relies on some shared level of cultural awareness. The "I'm going to crush you" comment only relies on a shared language.

Trash-talking is a routine part of competitive play, is all of that objectionable on sexist or homophobic grounds as well because it is a pattern of alpha-male predatory behavior?

The point I'm driving at, of course, is that the most egregious acts of sexism are spoken and acted out on the football field. It's tough to imagine a more compelling example of alpha-male behavior out of control, short of gunplay. One grown man hitting another so hard that he has a concussion or tears a knee ligament, and the fans "ooh"ing at each hard hit as it happens.

Lastly, what is most concerning to you, as a feminist professor of law? What is painted on locker room wall? Or what 70,000 people are cheering about? You have a rare pedestal that most of us don't, and will never have. Naturally, you have the right to choose whatever issues you want, but this observer finds the pink locker room a curious choice.

[tom]

SB: I have to ask your comments on hockey, too, because if you also condemn that sport as misogyinstic and alpha-male, then both EBuz and Gaulding come up short in your measurement of a true feminist. From what I've heard, you don't go into the corner with either of them and emerge unscathed.

[Gaulding]

SB: Like EBuz, I appreciate your careful fact checking, and your powerful feminist beliefs. I would say we are all on the same side here and should avoid being distracted by internal differences. But that is just my opinion.

I think you and EBuz see this problem differently in part because you view the relationship between sex and competive sports differently. Your approach tends toward "difference feminism," in a particular form that elevates some of the (supposed) feminine characteristics and denigrates some of the (supposed) masculine characteristics. EBuz and I happen to subscribe to a different version of feminism ("liberal" or "structural" feminism), which is much more skepical of supposed sex differences. We do not think competitive physical sports are bad, of and by themselves. In fact, we enjoy them, and I know my young daughters do too! Come join us on the ice sometime, if you want to see whether you might enjoy it too.

I think we can agree to disagree about the split between difference and structural feminism, and try to support one another when our viewpoints point in the same direction. The pink locker room falls into that category, even if it would be low on your priority list and higher on ours.

As to the "accuracy in citing" business, I want to refer you to the dialogue on EBuz's blog. When the issue was raised there, I responded to it much more thoroughly than I did here, and I would urge you to review what is written there before you draw any final conclusions about what EBuz was arguing and how she argued it.

I am a stickler for ethics, too, and, understanding EBuz's argument as I do, I see absolutely no reason to critique her citing ethics here. I think that to the extent you see a problem, it is because you are misunderstanding her argument. (Again, see the discussion on EBuz's blog for a fuller explanation of this misunderstanding.)

Interestingly, the person who might be subject to criticism along the lines you are pursuing is Bob Bowlsby. Unlike EBuz's argument, Bob Bowlsby's argument depends on whether Hayden Fry had mixed motives or a single (acceptable) motive. Given this stance, it was inappropriate for Bob Bowlsby to cite to the "pink is soothing" evidence without acknowledging the "pink is girlie and sissy" evidence (assuming that he knew about it).

But I would not waste my time on this nicety. As I keep saying, the question is whether it makes sense for the University to continue this tradition, given the large number of people who believe that the tradition rests on a slur against women and/or the so-called "sissies."

[TP]

I once read an article that discussed how when a weightroom is painted pink, those lifting weights actually lift less. Has anybody seen that? Just curious- if true, it might directly impact the game itself beyond perception.

[Tex Texerson]

Is EBuz herself not perpetuating the pink/girls myth by herself being offended by it? I consider if far more progressive for women to simply not self-identify with the color pink and stop being offended at things that are clearly not meant to offend them.

[Jay Cuda]

I wholeheartedly agree with Tex (9/28/05 1:22:36PM) that EBuz is perpetuating this whole pink-cident. On the greater vision of this whole evolution of the agenda, why in the world would a Professor of Law instigate such menial controversy on one's own home turf? Does the Professor believe such would advance anyone's position?

I do believe EBuz has probably painted some administration offices into seeing RED in this matter, gender equity aside. I'm certain this matter will also be handled with BLUE overatures by the NCAA whose dealings are a matter of BLACK or RED. I don't believe this to be a GRAY area needing much attention by the NCAA.

I need to ask of EBuz though, what color should the opposing locker room be? Many of us interpret colors as we see them in our own mind. Mindful of my own colorblindness, I ask EBuz to show some respect to the many humans whom share my "handicap" (the many that EBuz is oblivious to). From the looks of the many polls I've seen on this PINK issue (many of which are varying colors), EBuz should be a shade of RED by now. Let's hope that administration doesn't hand EBuz the PINK slip in the near future.

[Chris Ellis]

What a curious issue.

I have to agree whole heartedly with Tex Texerson's perspective.

But it also seems to me that a pink locker room can hardly be a gender equity issue for such a male dominated sport as football. Sure, if the color is what has been keeping women away from the sport, do away with it. But that's just not the issue.

[BB]

The problem many have with EBuz's argument is that it was poorly researched, if at all, when she went public with it. And her "citing" of Hayden Fry's autobiography was less than truthful. Iowans have been in love with Coach Fry since 1978 when he first came to Iowa, and that's never going to change. When she disrepected him by implying his "real reason" was something other than what he and The University of Iowa have said it was for over 25 years, she pissed a lot of reasonable people off.

Another major problem with her argument is that she is assuming she knows how men she's never met (players and coaches using the pink locker room) felt about being in an environment she's never been in (the pink locker room), and what their views of women are. That is a lot of assumption. Everyone has the right to see pink and have their own ideas about what it means. Pink is not the symbol of gay rights/pride. That's a pink triangle. Pink is simply a color all by itself.

[hawkdaddy]

you "scholars" kill me...and I use that term loosely...
it is ..what it is...a pink locker room...how that can
be perceived as offensive to ANYONE is mind-boggling...

If Erin and Gaulding are concerned about gender
equity...maybe they should THANK the Iowa football
program for raising so much money to give female
athletes a chance to compete....!!!

p.s. Gaulding says. "The players receive preferential treatment because their activity is lucrative. Then, when some of the players abuse their privileges, either by poor academic performance or by off the field behavior, the University looks the other way."

You can't prove that...simply your biased opinion

[Tom O'Bedlam]

It's a time-honored debating technique to put words in your opponent's mouth and then refute them. It's also cheap and easy, and proves nothing on the merits.

This is the first I've heard of putting thoughts in your opponents' heads and then condemning them. That's all Buzuvis is doing with her "stereotype" claims. Having imported all the negative connotations herself, she then condemns the connotations she herself has imported. It strikes me as equally cheap, and equally valueless on the merits.

If pink really has the universally negative connotations she suggests, isn't the logical conclusion of her argument to abolish all use of the color pink anywhere?

[Nathan P.]

"given the large number of people"

What about the even larger number of people, women included, who think this is a worthless plight? Mysoginism and sexism are deplorable in themselves. A pink locker room promotes neither.

I see my wife and 10 year-old step-daughter as equals in every way. I thank my god that my step-daughter has a sense of humor. There have been many times where we have been horsing around where I have said, "You're such girl!" Her response, "I am a girl!" Nothing makes me more proud than to hear her confidence in herself through those words.

I have spoken to my wife at length about this topic, one that she is not very fond of I might add, and has this profound sense of reality. She understands that if we went out to play football, she would be weaker than me. Does this make her inferior? Absolutely not.

[Billman]

Ebuz and Ms. Gaulding, keep up the good work. It's exactly this kind of endless, pointless, moronic debate over fabricated "issues" that killed the feminist movement.

6 months, 1 year, 5 years from now, the following will be true:
* The locker rooms will still be pink
* You will still be angry and self-righteous
* Your students will still snicker behind your back
* You will have changed nothing - nothing at all

[Me]

fuck the police