Ladies, Have Fun With Your Contradictions
The Women’s National Basketball Association, a subsidiary of the better-known NBA, is headed for a confrontation with reality.
This comes in several forms. This heretofore obscure and money-losing division of the NBA has been attracting both needed media attention and unwanted controversy.
One of their players, Caitlin Clark, a married white athlete, has been breaking all kinds of league records and attracting crowds wherever she appears. For putting the league on the media map with her exceptional play, she has been fouled, pummeled, and abused by the majority of black lesbian players.
The league’s owners, coaches, and referees have sat on their institutional hands while these beatings take place in public, subject to much negative scrutiny and commentary online and on podcasts. Fundamentally, because basketball is a spectator sport, millions have seen the mistreatment with their own eyes and know the denials are bogus.
This is not the kind of publicity a sports league should want.
The public does not like it as Clark is rapidly becoming the “Jackie Robinson” of normies. She is a player of outstanding ability, being discriminated against by the established league and its officials. The irony is the offenders are largely black and female, two groups that endlessly prattle about discrimination and unfair treatment. But the “patriarchy” is not the cause of their problems but rather their own prejudice, and the public has noticed the glaring hypocrisy.
Her teammate, the attractive and white Sophie Cunningham, gets roughed up as well, but Cunningham often attempts to protect Clark. However, Cunningham has attracted additional attention for standing up for women in sports by suggesting what, for centuries, was common sense: that men should not be playing sports alongside women.
So, abuse of white heterosexuals and an unwillingness to deal with the transgender threat to women’s sports has placed the WNBA in the front lines of the culture wars. Justifiably, the league is taking a barrage of incoming fire, now from several directions.
The league has responded with rehearsed statements to the controversy in an attempt to mitigate the damage. Unfortunately, the response sounds like it was crafted by a gender studies program that absorbed an HR department, all originating from North Korea.
As the controversy comes to a boil, two ex-NBA players say they will enter the draft for the WNBA, and Clay Travis, of radio and podcast fame, has said he will organize a club of male players called the Tennessee Balls to compete as a team in the women’s league.
The league is going to have to deal with the definition of “what is a woman”, and soon.
The league over the weekend said they will shortly be making a statement on the matter.
This is all very amusing to watch because the league seems captured by Leftist historical and social interpretations, displaying for all to see the internal contradictions of the radical movement.
Feminists told us there was no difference between men and women. Men and women are interchangeable, and the only explanation for diverse outcomes is discrimination and patriarchy. Thus, women and “people of color” deserve special treatment.
Gender studies hacks have told us that sex and gender are separate and that self-identification determines the outcome, even though DNA, hormones, and inherited differences in physical strength don’t seem to change despite self-declarations.
Women spent much of the last 30 years in court, tearing down all-male clubs and associations. They argued that it gave men an advantage because of the “old boys network”. They even went out of their way to destroy the Boy Scouts.
Now, many women wonder where the manly men are, having done all they could to destroy institutions and structures that produce men. This includes the nuclear family. Men and fathers are not needed, just a generous welfare program. Didn’t Gloria Steinem teach us that a “woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”?
They also spent a lot of their time lowering standards for the military, for police and firefighters, and other jobs, so women could compete. Management got the message and has openly discriminated against men in hiring.
OK, men will soon have a chance to compete within the lower standards of the WNBA. Is the “old girl network” going to openly discriminate against men?
You see, if men can’t have a male “safe space”, why should women have their “safe space”, especially since women today get most of the higher-paying jobs and dominate at the universities in terms of graduates. Having an exclusive place for women, and giving them special aid under Title 9, assumes you can define what a woman is.
Why should the WNBA be for women only if men and women are interchangeable? Further, if women are just as good, then competing against men should be no problem.
The trouble is if they go in that direction, second-rate and retired male athletes will quickly take over the league. Where will that leave them?
Most men are coming to the defense of women’s sports because they know damn well that women can be very good at certain things, but they can’t really compete with men on a physical basis in most sports.
So, it is amusing to see so much of the sisterhood allowing fake men into their ranks. But they are captured by ideology and not reality. Can LGB coexist with TQ?
If sex is as fluid as advocates contend, why can’t a male play in a women’s league, at least on the days he feels like a girl? And who can challenge how he might feel?
If they rule the other way, and define womanhood in the biological sense, they will face the wrath of much of their LGBTQ and whatever constituency. We don’t need men, especially to watch women’s basketball. The league can try to survive on a much smaller audience.
The decision will not only forever alter the course of women’s sports, but could strike a decisive blow against the nonsense of current gender ideology.
As Professor Richard M. Weaver so famously said, “ideas have consequences.” Ladies, have fun with your contradictions.
-Neil Nobel
Neland ‘Neil’ Nobel was born in Uniontown, Pennsylvania, and moved to Arizona in 1961. He attended ASU and earned a B.A. and an M.A. in history, with a specialty in economic and military history. He graduated Summa Cum Laude and received a Richard M. Weaver Fellowship from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. He spent the next 45 years in the financial services industry, ending his career with a 25-year run with UBS as a portfolio manager and Certified Financial Planner. In retirement, he remains active, having founded the Prickly Pear in 2020 and continuing to contribute content. In his spare time, he is a certified firearms instructor and runs a hiking club and two shooting clubs. He is married with three children and three grandchildren.
Any opinions articulated herein are those of the author, not The Prickly Pear.
