from NWSA Journal Volume 13, Number 1

Speaking of Cheryl Miller: Interrogating the Lesbian Taboo on a Women’s Basketball Newsgroup

DARCY C. PLYMIRE and PAMELA J. FORMAN

© 2001 NWSA Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1 (Spring)
Permission to Copy

You may download, save, or print for your personal use without permission. If you wish to disseminate the electronic article, or to produce multiple copies for classroom or educational use, please request permission from:

Copyright Clearance Center
Professional Relations Department
222 Rosewood Drive
Danvers MA 01923

FAX: 978-750-4470/4744
Web address: www.copyright.com

For other permissions, use our online reprint request form.
 

Our article examines the responses of a group of women’s basketball fans to an Internet posting that questioned the sexual orientation of women’s basketball star Cheryl Miller. Miller arouses speculation because she seems to play with cultural markers of gender and sexuality. She wears ties and suspenders while working as a coach and a broadcaster. The norms of women’s sport demand that women perform their heterosexuality in order to diffuse the “gender ambiguity” caused by competence in a “masculine” realm. Our analysis of 77 postings reveals that while some respondents are homophobic and/or heterosexist, other fans have a more sophisticated understanding of the sexual politics of women’s sport and are supportive of lesbian participants. The latter group includes heterosexual men and women who “came out” in defense of lesbians and against the systematic homophobia and heterosexism of sport. Our findings also support the contention that discussions of sexuality preclude discussions of race.

On April 21, 1997, a posting appeared on a women’s basketball bulletin board under the heading “Is Cherl Miller as lesbian?”1 The posting read “C’mon, don’t tell me you have never wondered. I think she is a lesbian. Wouldn’t it be nice if she held a ‘coming out party’ to coincide with Ellen Degeneres at the end of April?” (1A).2

Miller is not an out lesbian. Whether or not she is a closeted lesbian is not a question that we will attempt to answer here. Indeed her sexuality is not the issue. Miller is simply a public figure who has prompted one fan to raise a sensitive issue. In response to the question a group of fans using the Internet newsgroup engaged in an enlightening discussion of the sexual politics of women’s sport. That discussion offers a rare glimpse of fans’ understanding of the meaning of lesbians in sport. Where sport fans are typically presumed to be homophobic and heterosexist, the responses of these fans suggest that fan attitudes and opinions are far more complex.

Miller is a former four-time National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) All-American basketball player and three-time NCAA player of the year. She led the University of Southern California (USC) Women of Troy to two NCAA national championships. She was a member of the 1984 Olympic team, which won a gold medal, and she helped the U.S. team win both the World Championships and Goodwill Games in 1986.

Miller has been a controversial figure at times. In 1993 she took the head coaching job at her alma mater, USC, after the university chose to fire coach Marianne Stanley rather than pay her a salary comparable to her male counterpart, George Raveling. That move earned Miller the wrath of many women players, coaches, and fans (Hoffer 1993; “It’s Not Miller Time” 1994), but did not stall her career. Miller coached USC for only one season, but since 1993 she has blossomed into a media star. She covers the National Basketball Association (NBA) as an analyst and commentator for NBC, the Turner Broadcasting System (TBS) and Turner Network Television (TNT), and is coach and general manager of the Phoenix Mercury of the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA).

Miller is also an African American woman in a sport in which the majority of players are African American, a sport, however, in which the best male players, such as Michael Jordan, are worldwide superstars, while the best women players labor in relative obscurity. The roles she plays for TNT and the WNBA—analyst and coach—are roles typically reserved for men. Though African Americans dominate on the court, white men control the vast majority of important coaching and administrative positions in both the professional and the collegiate ranks in both men’s and women’s basketball. In the world of broadcasting, Miller has reached a rare status. She is a bona fide celebrity, and, whereas most women broadcasters are decorative, Miller is a basketball expert.

Miller’s public image is also unique in the world of basketball. Other marquee players, such as Sheryl Swoopes of the WNBA Houston Comets, embody traditional models of feminine dress and comportment. A pregnant Swoopes was featured on the cover of the inaugural issue of the Sports Illustrated spin off, Women/Sport. Swoopes has also been portrayed as a “shopaholic” in an ad for the Discover card and a domestic genius in an ad for the household product “Clean Shower.” In contrast, Miller is not only cast as an expert in a masculine realm, she also clothes herself in masculine regalia. She has appeared on NBA broadcasts on the sidelines during WNBA games wearing suspenders, ties, and/or a vest. These clothing choices not only separate her from the typical female basketball coach and/or broadcaster, but they also are items of clothing that lesbians often use to identify themselves to one another and the world (Walker 1993). Thus, Miller’s public persona allows lesbian fans an opportunity to weave her into a discourse about lesbian identity.

Ironically, Miller has spoken out on the issue of femininity and the woman athlete. In a 1984 interview Miller said of her USC Trojan team, “Our goal . . . is to play like men on the court and to behave like women off the court” (Peper 1994, 203). She expressed similar sentiments in 1997, but added a new twist to the concept of femininity. In an article in a New York Times Magazine fashion supplement, Miller described her preparation of her public persona:

I like to take a long bubble bath and a few moments to reflect. Then I start dressing. I like to wear tailored slacks and a tailored white shirt with french cuffs. The shirt has to be crisp—starched lightly, not real hard. I put on my favorite cufflinks. I put on my suspenders and then a nice tie . . . and then I slip on my trouser socks and favorite Gucci shoes. This gives me the all together look that doesn’t compromise my femininity. (Finnerty and Sweeney 1997, 40)

These comments suggest that Miller may be orchestrating what Clark calls “gay window advertising” (1993, 188). She, and perhaps her employers, mobilize “signifiers of sexual ambiguity and androgynous style” and arouse the interest of lesbian observers. Yet that interest is never acknowledged publicly by Miller or her employers, just as the presence of lesbian fans attracts little comment from athletic organizations, even as that group constitutes an increasingly visible and vocal presence at women’s sporting events (DeMotier 1998; Griffin 1998; Schwartz 1997). These omissions are part of a larger problem. In the context of women’s sport, lesbians are supposed to remain silent and out of sight.

The Code of Silence

Women’s sport operates under a code of silence. Lesbians are neither to speak nor to be spoken of (Cahn 1993, 1994, 1996; Crossett 1995; Griffin 1998; Lenskyj 1986, 1991, 1994). The code of silence is rationalized as a means of protecting women in sport from the stigma of lesbianism (Griffin 1998; Lenskyj 1991, 1994). The reasoning among producers of women’s sporting events is that fans and/or sponsors would abandon the game if the presence of lesbians was openly acknowledged (Crosset 1995; Griffin 1998; Lenskyj 1991, 1994). Ironically, of course, some sports at some times have provided a haven for lesbians. For example, team sports such as softball have attracted young women looking for a lesbian identity and community (Cahn 1993, 1994). Though many women have found those things in sport, and though lesbians are an important part of the fan base of women’s sport (Plymire and Forman 2000; Schwartz 1997), in the dominant forms of contemporary, high-profile sport women labor under the code of silence.

The attempt to shield women’s sport fans from knowledge of lesbians can have negative consequences for women who play and work in sport. Blinde and Taub (1992) examine how false accusations of lesbianism lead women athletes to perform the “female apologetic” (Felshin 1974)—a performance of heterosexuality, and sometimes heterosexism and homophobia—meant to establish the performer’s heterosexuality. The constant struggle to establish “normalcy” strains athletes, coaches, and administrators who may never be allowed to let down their guard and/or who may be accused of lesbianism despite their efforts to conform (Crossett 1995; Griffin 1998; Lenskyj 1991). Rotella and Murray argue that the lesbian stigma prevents many women from striving to excel at sports and leads some women to be ambivalent to their own athletic success (1991). Krane, too, argues that the psychological consequences of stigma and silence are not limited to lesbians, but like Rotella and Murray and Griffin, she insists that like heterosexual women, lesbians have a right to live outside of the closet (1996).

Women who refuse to be silent and invisible may suffer dire consequences. For example, in 1996 The Ohio State University (OSU) fired Karen Weaver, a successful field hockey coach and a lesbian, after she complained about unequal treatment of male and female athletes. Six other women coaches at OSU, some of them lesbian, were fired or asked to resign between May 1994 and the time Weaver was released in 1996 (Galst 1997).

Lesbian visibility frightens some athletic organizations, too (Crossett 1995; Lenskyj 1991). As was the case with feminist organizations such as the National Organization for Women (NOW), some sports organizations that profess feminist goals are often afraid to confront the homophobia and heterosexism in their ranks, let alone to tackle discrimination in athletic institutions. Professional sports organizations, which are commercial enterprises with no feminist goals or philosophies, merely want to rid themselves of the stigma of lesbianism. According to Lenskyj, such organizations “[find] it easier to deal with the so-called image problem . . . than to say, or even hear, the word lesbian” (1991, 60). Todd Crossett says that the Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) deals with the lesbian image problem by publicizing the heterosexuality of its marquee stars while distancing itself from its lesbian performers and lesbian fans (1995).

In hostile athletic environments, lesbian athletes are defined as the problem (Griffin 1998); “many sports administrators make hiring and firing decisions based on women’s known or perceived sexual orientation” (Lenskyj 1991, 62). In response “many lesbian coaches, administrators, physical educators, and athletes go to considerable lengths to hide their sexual orientation from their peers and employers” (62). According to this logic, “innocent” heterosexual women are unfairly stigmatized because of the lesbian presence in sport (Griffin 1998; Rotella and Murray 1991). However, in such a climate, lesbians suffer the most.

Even conditionally tolerant environments—ones where lesbians are tolerated rather than persecuted on the condition that they remain silent—can be damaging to careers and psyches (Griffin 1998). The strategy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” seems to allow lesbians and gay men the chance to live autonomous private lives in any manner they choose. However, by demanding silence, policies of this type compel lesbians and gay men constantly to monitor and circumscribe their speech, appearance, and behavior lest they be subjected to the full weight of legal, juridical, and moral sanctions (Blasius and Phelan 1997).

In this climate, the interest of fans in the sexuality of participants is almost inevitably interpreted negatively. The response among LPGA players to the frequent questions of fans and media is to dodge the issue, claiming to have no personal knowledge or experience with lesbians on tour (Crossett 1995). The official policies of the WNBA and the now defunct American Basketball League (ABL) have been to refuse to discuss the topic of lesbians in the league or in the stands. The reticence of LPGA players is guided by the assumption that such questions by fans reflect a prurient interest, while questions of the media are interpreted as attempts to start a scandal in order to produce a story. The motives of the WNBA and ABL are less clear, but both leagues seem to agree that open discussions would inevitably do more harm than good.

Clearly fans are interested in the sexuality of participants in women’s sport. Lesbian fans in particular take pleasure in discussions and speculations about lesbians in sport (Allen 1997; Plymire and Forman 2000). However, there is little if any empirical information on how fans make sense of the presence of lesbians in sport. The newsgroup offers a rare opportunity to listen to a candid discussion of lesbians in sport by a group of avid fans.

Studying Internet Newsgroups

Proponents of the Internet argue that the medium has the potential to democratize public discourse (Cutler 1996; Foster 1997; Poster 1997). Levinson asserts that anyone who uses an Internet newsgroup or bulletin board is, in effect, the author, editor, and publisher of his or her own work (1997). The lack of gatekeepers on the Internet does mean that users can air their views with little fear of sanctions. Though users may “flame” those people who voice unpopular opinions and views (Gurak 1997; Millard 1997; Thompsen 1996), opinions are censored only rarely. Compared to traditional media, Internet publishing requires relatively little capital investment. If Levinson is correct, one may become a writer, editor, and publisher for the cost of a personal computer and a modem, an investment as low as a few hundred dollars in today’s market. Once online, the user can easily enter the public sphere of social and political discourse on bulletin boards, newsgroups, and listservs (Knapp 1997). Listservs, which require the user to join or belong to a group, are the most private of these venues. The other two sites are regarded as public in every sense of the word (Paccagnella 1997). While participants may not reasonably expect their postings to newsgroups and/or bulletin boards to be private, they may expect them to be read by a relatively large audience. This is a large part of the appeal of these sites—they allow people with common interests to share their thoughts with others who are, presumably, like­minded. In these venues people are remarkably candid, emboldened by the relative anonymity of the Internet to say things that they might be inhibited to say in other contexts. Thus, speech that is taboo in other contexts may find expression in cyberspace.

Methodology

The Internet thread promulgated by the posting “Is Cherl Miller as lesbian?” offers an opportunity to examine how fans of one women’s sport deal with the issue of lesbians in sport. The respondents are unlike most research subjects. They did not know that they were to be subjects in a research study. The medium of the bulletin board—which confers anonymity—encourages people to speak freely on sensitive and/or controversial topics. In addition, the “subjects” of this research were responsible for both selecting the topic and guiding the direction of the research. As researchers, we were responsive and/or opportunistic. We discovered by accident the Internet thread that began with the query “Is Cherl Miller as lesbian?” Intrigued, we followed the thread and collected all postings in the stream from April 21, 1997, when the original posting appeared, until June 2, 1997, when the thread ran out. Forty-four respondents wrote the 77 postings that we collected.

Following precedent in sociological and mass communications research, we neither asked the contributors for their permission to use the material we collected, nor did we inform them of our intent to do so (Baym 1995; Binik et al. 1997; Gurak 1997; Mitra 1997; Plymire and Forman 2000; Schmitz 1997; Shaw 1997; Watson 1997). This tactic is consistent with ethical standards set by the Project H Research Group, a collection of 98 communications and social science scholars:

We view public discourse on CMC [computer-mediated communication] as just that: public. Analysis of such content, where individuals’, institutions’, and lists’ identities are shielded, is not subject to ‘Human Subject’ restraints. Such study is more akin to the study of tombstone epitaphs, graffiti, or letters to the editor. Personal?—yes. Private?—no. (Paccagnella 1997, 8)

Some researchers reveal their subjects’ online pseudonyms, but we have chosen to use a coding system that shields not only the “real life” names and addresses of the participants but also their online pseudonyms (Baym 1995; Mitra 1997). We assigned an identifying number to each participant. For example, our first contributor, the woman who began the Miller thread, is contributor number 1, the second is 2, and so on. Since some contributors posted more than one message, we have given each posting a letter as well, e.g., 1A, 1B, and so on.

We coded the postings according to theme. Some postings exhibited more than one theme and were placed into more than one category. We also looked at the relationships between postings, as they were written in response to one another. The themes were interrelated and were best viewed as part of an overriding discourse rather than as individual speech acts. Our coding was guided by our understanding of the sexual politics of women’s sport.

Some respondents identified themselves in terms of gender and/or sexual orientation. The Internet allows a user to construct an online identity that does not match his or her “real life identity” (RLI) (Plymire and Forman 2000; Turkle 1997a, 1997b). Some individuals may choose to construct a gender identity that does not match their RLI. However, gender travel is probably more prevalent on Multiple User Domains (MUDs) where role-playing is central to the game (Turkle 1997a, 1997b). Researchers typically assume that newsgroup and bulletin board users use their RLI (Baym 1997; Shaw 1997). Though we recognize the problems in such an assumption, and realize that it is possible for respondents to use another’s e-mail account, we have followed precedent and accepted that our subjects’ self-identifications probably reflect their RLIs. We interpreted the gender of the other respondents using the name, where included, in their Internet addresses. Fifteen of the 44 respondents were male and 14 were female. The sex of the other 15 could not be determined from the available information. Eight of the respondents “came out” as straight in the course of their arguments while just two identified themselves as lesbian. None of the respondents claimed to be gay men.

As with gender, the Internet affords users an opportunity to claim a racial or class identity that does not match one’s RLI. Statistically, the affluent, white, college-educated males dominate the Internet (Wolf 1998). Though none of the participants identified themselves by race or class, the fact that none mentioned their race may be an indication that most were white. Since white is the unmarked classification in a European dominated culture, white people would be less likely to speak of race. A similar argument might be made about class. Since class was not mentioned, and middle class is the unmarked designation, we might assume that most of the respondents were of the middle class. Further evidence in support of this contention is provided by the university affiliation of many respondents. Thus, we may strongly suspect that this discussion, like the medium of the Internet, was dominated by affluent whites.

Results

We identified seven themes associated with sexual politics of women’s sport: spectatorship; homophobia; silence; gender and sport; lesbian/gay rights; identity politics; and race. Some postings articulated more than one theme, and the themes overlapped to some degree. In addition, many of the contributors expressed seemingly contradictory ideas, sometimes in the same posting. Thus, the author’s intentions were not always clear and another reader might categorize some statements differently than we did. Though our themes are consistent with a broader discourse about women in sport, they are also indicative of the content of the postings.

Spectatorship

A woman looking for lesbian images in popular media started the Internet thread. Eleven others also commented on the meaning of images of lesbians. Two writers alluded to a code by which lesbians attempt to know one another. The first was the author of the original post who said, “Don’t tell me you never wondered” (1A). Another (10A) also cited the code but came to a different, and perhaps ironic, conclusion: “No way Cheryl Miller is a lesbian! she’s way too butch.”

These contributors were most interested in whether Miller could serve as an appropriate role model for other lesbian athletes, even though she was not an out lesbian. “I care [if Cheryl Miller is a lesbian],” said one, because visible “lesbian athletes provide important role models for the rest of us lesbian athletes” (15A). Respondent 18A thought that lesbians could view Miller as a role model, “just as African-Americans, Hispanics, women, or members of any minority or other group subjected to oppression or discrimination are likely to ‘own’ members of their groups who succeed and excel and hold them up as shining examples.”

Another countered that Miller was a poor role model. She “has never said she is a lesbian” and has made a point of expressing her attraction to men (26A). This participant commented that Miller was “obviously looking at Stephen Marbury with more than maternal eyes last night in the inside nba.” 25A asserted that Miller has said “how attracted she is to Denzel Washington several times while commentating on TNT.” She stated that role models must be visible not “in the sense that ‘you just know’, but visible in the sense that you are open and proud.” If Miller is a lesbian and remains silent, “The message to young lesbians is that it is not okay to be a lesbian in basketball, because if Cheryl Miller with all her popularity is afraid to be open and honest, then surely I should be afraid.” These contributors wanted more than lesbian images, and many demanded more than images that simultaneously opened up and closed down lesbian possibilities. The desires of these respondents were in contrast to those of fans who wanted no lesbians or lesbian images to detract from their participation and enjoyment of sport.

Homophobia

Fifteen postings were openly homophobic. These responses varied from the annoyance of a straight woman—“I play volleyball, basketball, softball, and tennis. I would be furious if someone thought I was a lesbian” (20A)—to the sarcasm of a man who responded to 1A. He quipped, “I don’t think [Miller] is [a lesbian] because she’s so busy. My understanding is that a tell-tale sign is sitting around for three or four days at a time trying to come up with something clever to post on newsgroups” (2A).

Overt homophobia was sometimes vitriolic. One man, who claimed to be concerned for the well-being of children, compared homosexuality to pedophilia.

So you wouldn’t mind have a pedophile as a babysitter for your children?? Yea you probably would, and why not! Maybe sometimes we have a right to explore the sexual orientation of the people we make responsible for the ones we love. (32A)

This man concluded that lesbians had a right to their “preference,” but that he had an equal right to consider their preference a “perversion . . . and then to remove my support from anything related (i.e., basketball) those people” (32A). In the same vein, 38A wrote,

I as a father have difficulty taking my daughter to games today due to the tremendous following by the Lesbian faction of our society. During the ACC Championship tournament this past year there was a phamplet being passed around to all females inviting them to a “special” dance, my daughter was handed one (a teenager) it was not children friendly and was sexually graphic. This is unacceptable behavior and would not be done by straight people. A very concerned father of daughters.

These homophobes clearly wished to perpetuate the code of silence, but they were not the only ones. Some people who demanded silence on the subject of lesbians in sport saw themselves as protectors not only of women’s sport, but also of the privacy rights of individuals.

Silence

Twelve respondents wished to silence the discussion of lesbians in sport. Some of the people who demanded silence were convinced that the issue was merely “irrelevant” (6A). The first of these (3A) was indicative of the tone of the majority: “(N)one of your business. Don’t you have anything meaningful to talk about? I think we would all appreciate it if you took your comments to another chat room.” 5A angrily asked, “WHO CARES? What diff does it make? Whoever asked [if Cheryl Miller was a lesbian] is really too damn curious, or is extremely dumb.” 8B commented that Miller’s sexual preference made “no difference as far as her public life is concerned. But regardless of her notoriety, sexual preference, or your wishes, she is entitled to some privacy. Her life is her own.” And 43A implored, “if you respect [Miller’s] right to choose whatever sexual orientation she wishes. Then please respect her right to some privacy, free of wild speculation.”

One man, however, decried the cost of silence and secrecy, I am a 59 year old father and lover of women’s basketball. In the 10 years of my fandom I have met and become friends with a lot of terrific lesbians. We work together to support our team, women’s basketball in general, and each other. . . . It is almost impossible for these fine women to be public. The price is just too high! (29A)

This man supported those who were brave enough to come out but refused to condemn those who would or could not. He recognized that silence was a form of homophobia but that, in a homophobic society, speaking out was often dangerous. He concluded that “homophobia is one of the horrors of our society and its power to inflict serious pain is enormous. It really makes me angry.” Both this man and the others who wanted to protect Cheryl Miller’s privacy seemed to think that speaking about sexuality was primarily an issue of concern for lesbians. Another group of contributors, however, understood that the silence about lesbians in sport affected all women in sport because women in sport violated gender norms and were, thus, open to accusations of lesbianism.

Sport and the Gender Code

Twelve respondents argued that the question of sexuality was relevant to women’s sport because sport was a gendered activity. One enunciated the gist of this argument succinctly:

Sports are seen as masculine. [Ever hear anyone wonder is a woman figure skater a lesbian?] Sports like figure skating and gymnastics have a “feminine” picture in people’s minds. Those like basketball are seen as masculine. So a woman who is good at bball is seen as a bit masculine. And since the stereotype is out there that lesbians are masculine women—and gays are feminine men—the conclusion is logical—if not reasonable. (13A)

Another replied that he was aware of the reasons why women athletes were suspected of being lesbians, but he felt that “society should be beyond this sort of thing.” One man thought that Miller’s strength and refusal to take “crap” from men “partially explains why people are wondering about [her] sexual orientation” (14A). He said that many men feel uncomfortable around a strong woman. “They assume that there must be something ‘weird’ about her” and men who “still see sex as a power-over-women situation” may dismiss strong women as lesbian “when they are rejected.” Our society lags behind this man’s expectations as exemplified by the heterosexism of our next respondent. “Not all women who take no mess are gay,” he insisted. He added that his late wife had been a tall strong woman. “Yet it would be an enormous stretch . . . to portray her as a lesbian” (12E). Off the court, she comported herself in a stereotypical feminine fashion—wearing make up and baking cookies.

These respondents understood the connection between gender norms and discrimination against women in sport, but their responses were not necessarily lesbian positive. Indeed, their understanding of the gender of sport led them to sympathize with straight women who were unjustly suspected of lesbianism rather than with lesbians. In contrast, the next group of contributors was concerned that lesbians and gay men be accorded the freedom to participate in sport openly and with dignity.

Lesbian/Gay Rights

Respondents who “came out” in support of lesbian/gay rights constituted the largest category by far with 33 responses. These responses included, but were not limited to, those who wanted Miller to be a role model and straight people who announced their sexuality in defense of lesbians in sport. These respondents were adamant that all lesbian and gay athletes be treated fairly and with respect. Authors pointed out that “speculation about whether someone is a lesbian should not be seen as insulting” (16A) and that lesbians in sport had rights. The most eloquent expression of this theme came from 18A who argued that Miller could act as a role model for lesbians because “for a very long time lesbians and gays have been in the position of having no role models in the public eye.” She contended that there was a great danger if the discourse about sexuality in sport was allowed to “continue in the same vein it has followed thus far, with women expressing the fear, hurt and resentment they experience at being considered lesbians.” Such posturing, she thought,

[i]s likely to be to the detriment of homosexual athletes as heterosexual athletes attempt to debunk the myth of lesbians in sports and distance themselves from their lesbian contemporaries, thus forcing lesbians further into the closet.

She suggested that the solution to homophobia and heterosexism in sport would be to celebrate the contributions of lesbians to sport. Positive role models could offer to the homophobic world examples of successful, high achieving lesbians and gay men. “It is of the utmost importance to see openly gay people succeed and excel.” The category of lesbian and gay rights overlapped with that of “identity politics” because several people, gay and straight, used their sexual identity to make statements in support of lesbians and gay men in sport.

Identity Politics

Twelve respondents used their identity to legitimate their arguments. One lesbian stated, “lesbian athletes provide important role models for the rest of us lesbian athletes. High Fives to Cheryl Miller” (15A). Significantly, not all the respondents to espouse identity politics were lesbian. A few male heterosexuals felt it necessary to declare their own sexual orientation to make a point. Said one, “gay people’s lives no more evolve around the bedroom than heterosexuals. . . . and for those of you [who] are naturally curious,,,, I’m straight, but not narrow[.]” (36A). A straight woman declared her sexuality in order to respond to a homophobic post that had claimed “straight” people never flaunt or force their sexuality on others. She said,

My fiancé and I flaunt our sexuality on an extremely regular basis. We hold hands, we kiss, we tell everybody we know that we are planning on spending our life together. I’ve even flaunted my preference at a[n ABL] game—with the help of an announcer, the scoreboard, and a rent-a-Santa, I asked [my fiancé] if he would marry me. If that isn’t presenting, forcing, displaying, and advertising my sexual preference, then I don’t know what is. (27B)

She and her fiancé attended the game with a gay couple, and she regretted that their long-time relationship did not have the same approval as her own pending marriage. However, not all of those responses that used identity politics were lesbian positive. The men who made the most offensive homophobic statements identified themselves as fathers in order to justify their trenchant opinions (32A; 38A). Each of those who identified him or herself privileged sexual identity over racial identity. In fact, though Cheryl Miller is an African American woman, race entered the discussion only indirectly.

Race

Race did enter the discourse in several ways, however. 2B seemed to forget that Cheryl Miller was an African American when he questioned whether it was appropriate to see Miller as a role model for lesbians. “Should multi-cultural youngsters be ashamed because the beauty of his game isn’t the only reason they admire Tiger Woods?” He also commented about Mexican kids who admire Fernando Valenzuela both because he is Mexican and has contributed to Major League baseball. While to this respondent both race and sexual identity are salient categories, our next respondent sees these identities as immaterial. Another insisted that the difference between gay and straight was like “catholic or Jewish, or Democrat or republican, or white or black Basketball is basketball” (37A). Here the notion is that it is the game that matters, not the identities of those playing it.

Second, six respondents made a political comparison between the rights of lesbians and gays and other “minority” groups, African Americans in particular. The first of these responses claimed that the “harmful” and “incorrect” stereotypes of lesbians and gay men were akin to “Jimmy the Greek’s deplorable statement about blacks being bred for sport” (14A) and compared the discrimination against “homosexual and bisexual athletes” to the historic exclusion of African American athletes (14D). N4 believed that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was just “as bad” as race oppression.

In an interesting twist to actor Degeneres’s coming out as lesbian, 18A queried, “(W)hat if [Ellen Degeneres] had come out as black or female?” In response to that post 12B quipped that it “would have been a neat trick” for Ellen to come out as an African American woman. Then he recounted the following story:

Last summer . . . there was an ongoing feud between some lesbian high school basketball players and some of their straight counterparts which began when the lesbians tried to outdo each other in their bold approaches to attractive young women in the summer league. . . . Some of the straight girls approached were very upset, and eventually, a multi-participant fight broke out . . . between the groups of the type police usually refer to as “mutual combat” (as opposed to a hate crime against either gay or straight women). The most interesting thing about the fight was that black, white and hispanic were on both sides.

This contributor’s point seems to be that the divisions between lesbians and straight women (or in this case, girls) are so deep that they transcend other potentially significant social divisions. Here sexuality is seen as more salient than race.

Others commented that both lesbians and gays and people of color experience discrimination. 7A argued that,

[j]ust as African-Americans, Hispanics, women, or members of any minority or other group subject to oppression or discrimination are likely to “own” members of their groups who succeed and excel and hold them up as shining examples of the best “their people” can be, so are homosexuals. Unlike other groups who have made great strides, homosexuals still have precious few individuals they can point to as examples.

Her argument was that sexual orientation is integral to identity and should be taken into account as should race when considering a person’s achievements.

Discussion

Internet newsgroups are not random samples, and the number of postings to this thread is relatively small. In addition, there is reason to believe that the respondents are relatively homogenous in regards to race and class. Thus the themes that we identified can not be construed as representative of the opinions and/or attitudes of women’s sport fans in general. Despite those limitations the chance to understand the thinking of this singular group of fans adds to our understanding of women’s sport. Rather than assume that fans are a monolithic group that are uniformly homophobic, the results of the study compel us to think of sports fans as a diverse group with a complex variety of understandings of sex, gender, and sexuality.

Not all fans of women’s basketball are supportive of lesbians. Some are openly homophobic and/or heterosexist. The angry diatribes of such people are clearly one way that lesbians in sport are controlled, and the vitriol of homophobes produces a climate in which lesbians may feel more comfortable in the closet. However, open and/or vicious homophobic attacks are not the only danger to lesbians in sport. Lesbians are also controlled by those who “merely” wish that they were silent and invisible. In this study, many of the silencers profess not to care who is a lesbian in sport (though they clearly care enough to enter the Internet debate). These people argue that sexuality does not, or should not, make a difference, while others couch their demand for silence in the rhetoric of privacy and individual rights. This move reinforces the argument that lesbians are just like everyone else, except for what they do in private. Thus, the lesbians are allowed to exist, if they agree to keep their lesbianism private. In addition, the argument assumes that lesbians ought to be just like everyone else, e. g., heterosexual women. This is fundamentally a heterosexist argument because it assumes that heterosexuality is the right and normal way to be, and therefore the only proper goal of homosexuals is to mimic heterosexual propriety everywhere but in their private sexual behavior.

In this study, some fans recognize the cost of the code of silence and the dangers of the closet and argue that lesbian and gay athletes have the right to be open about their sexuality. They insist that lesbian participants ought to be valued for who they are and what they could contribute to women’s sport, even if acceptance of lesbians meant recognizing the legitimacy of ways of living and loving that did not mimic the heterosexual. Indeed, many comprehend that the silence surrounding lesbians in sport not only hurts lesbians—who are forced to lead half lives for the sake of public relations—but also serves to control all women in sport.

The persona of Cheryl Miller may be understood in terms of gay window advertising, a marketing strategy that encourages what Mayne calls lesbian spectatorship (1996). Mayne notes that films such as Fried Green Tomatoes have attracted a substantial lesbian following even though that film “simultaneously opens up and closes down lesbian possibilities” by using visual codes that imply an intimate relationship between two women without ever naming the relationship (166). This tactic allows lesbians to read the relationship in lesbian terms without forcing heterosexual viewers to consider the lesbian subtext. Cheryl Miller’s persona operates in the same way. Her appearance suggests a lesbian identity while that identity is simultaneously denied by the heterosexist culture of sport. However, lesbian fans in this study are not satisfied with lesbian spectatorship. They want positive lesbian role models. They do not want their heroes to model the “play it don’t say it” strategy, nor are they satisfied with ambiguous images that offer a lesbian reading even as they close off lesbian possibilities.

The injunction to silence and invisibility rests on the assumption that the presence of lesbians in women’s sport would scare off heterosexual fans. The current study, however, demonstrates that even self-identified heterosexual fans may be cognizant of lesbians’ presence in sport, aware of the difficulties caused by the code of silence, appreciative of lesbians’ contributions to sport, and supportive of greater visibility.

Historically, women playing team sports such as basketball and softball have been more prone to accusations of lesbianism than figure skaters or gymnasts. Team sports are considered more masculine, not only because they are thought to require the so-called masculine attributes of speed, strength, and endurance, but because they require team members to form close bonds. The promoters of women’s team sports may perceive a financial interest in de-emphasizing the “masculine” connotations of their sports and focusing on the “normal” (hetero)sexuality of their top players; they may fear alienating homophobic fans and sponsors if they present the wrong image. Many of the respondents were well versed in the sexual politics of women’s sport and recognized that the gender order of sports meant that all women athletes were suspicious because they violated established gender norms. Some wanted to debunk the “myth” that all “strong women” were lesbians by downplaying the presence of lesbians in sport and pointing to the “feminine” characteristics of selected performers. However, several people realized that this strategy is to the disadvantage of lesbians and might, ultimately, backfire on heterosexual women, since the lesbian label works as a form of social control. As long as strong women can be accused of being dykes, one’s heterosexuality will not stave off accusations, and all women can, therefore, be coerced into appropriate feminine behavior: weak, passive, and submissive to men.

The people who argued for lesbian and gay rights are not all lesbians or gay men. It would be an error to assume that one’s politics are so closely linked to one’s sexual orientation. Though some lesbians spoke for lesbian rights and some homophobes asserted their own heterosexuality, several straight people “came out” to provide eloquent arguments in defense of lesbian and gay rights. By the same token, one cannot assume that all of those people who pleaded for silence were heterosexual. Many lesbians and gay men more or less willingly participate in maintaining their silence, believing, perhaps, that silence is safer or otherwise preferable to, or more profitable than, life out of the closet.

Though the Internet thread was about the sexual politics of women’s sport rather than about Cheryl Miller, per se, the fact that the discussion began with speculation about an African American celebrity is significant. On the one hand, the fact that Miller aroused the curiosity of some fans illustrates that African American lesbians are not always invisible. On the other, Miller’s identity as an African American is clearly subordinated to her sexual identity within the terms of the Internet thread. None of the respondents “came out” as African American or white in order to make an argument, and when the issue of race was raised, it was to make an analogy between the struggle for civil rights and the struggle for lesbian and gay rights. The story of the high school girls who crossed racial and ethnic lines to fight over sexuality demonstrates that the issue of sexuality can supercede other issues, but it also suggests that coming out and/or breaking the code of silence poses substantial danger to lesbians of color. If sexuality supplants other identities, then lesbians of color who come out may risk losing their place in other communities.

In this context, the image presented by Cheryl Miller and the image of female sexuality that she portrays becomes salient. Historically, African American women have been depicted in white culture as sexually promiscuous. To combat such images, African American women have adopted a code of silence about their own sexuality (Hammonds 1997), much like that to which lesbians in sport adhere. Hammonds (1997) and Chan (1996) both say that discussions of sexuality often render race invisible. In Chan’s words, “individuals who declare sexual identity may become identified primarily in those terms,” and once one is “perceived as primarily being lesbian/gay” that knowledge “negate[s] their ethnic/racial identit[y]” (1996, 92). The invisibility of African American lesbians has been compounded by the tendency of many African Americans to view lesbians as traitors to the community (Lorde 1984).

Within African American communities, however, female athletes have not always been perceived as traitors, nor has athleticism been equated with lesbianism. Though some in African American communities may view female athletes in a negative light, the success of female athletes also has been interpreted as a benefit to the community (Cahn 1994). However, the positive image of the African American female athlete has not always extended to the white mainstream. According to Cahn, for whites “stereotypes of African American females as highly sexual, promiscuous, and unrestrained in their heterosexual passions discouraged the linkage between mannishness and lesbianism” (1993, 352). Yet those interpretations of black female sexuality were no compliment to African American female athletes. Rather they were examples of “racist gender ideologies [that] further complicated the meaning of mannishness” (352). African American women who played sport were the opposite of the white ideal of womanhood. Those athletes were construed as “aggressive, coarse, passionate, and physical—the same qualities assigned to manliness in sport” (352).

Contemporary African American women athletes are caught in an insidious logic. Perhaps they are not perceived to be lesbians because they are “excluded from dominant ideals of womanhood” and “their success in sport could be interpreted not as an unnatural deviation but, rather, as the natural result of their reputed closeness to nature, animals, and masculinity” (Cahn 1993, 352). Nonetheless, African American women who play competitive sports are expected to conduct themselves in a feminine fashion off the court. They are accepted by and acceptable to white and African American audiences when they conform to conservative heterosexual norms. Yet even that may not be enough. World-record-setting sprinter Florence Griffith Joyner was celebrated for her long hair, long nails, and feminine attire, but her critics alleged that her superlative performances were the result of steroid use (Cahn 1994). In such a climate, there are few safe places for African American lesbians in contemporary sport.

It is too soon to conclude that the average women’s sports fan has overcome culturally entrenched homophobia and heterosexism. However, lesbian fans have become a visible and vocal presence at women’s sporting events (DeMotier 1998; Fisher 1998; Schwartz 1997), and in tandem with heterosexual fans who are lesbian positive, the potential for changing the sexual politics of women’s sport seems high. As one respondent said,

I am very impressed that this newsgroup . . . seems very forward thinking. If this topic were brought up on any number of groups I lurk in the overwhelming response would be . . . “who cares, everybody knows they’re all dykes anyway”. . . . Although some people still obviously have their heads up their butts, it’s clear to me that a lot of people have some really interesting and valuable views on the topic. (24D)

Our article contributes to the ongoing debate of sexual politics in women’s sports by adding the voices of spectators of women’s athletics. In the past, the dominant voices have been those of sportswriters who chose to “out” certain athletes and in many cases sensationalized those athletes’ sexual identity in an attempt to create resonance with their readership. Other writers and people associated with women’s athletics have attempted to hide the lesbian identity of some athletes, coaches, and administrators in an attempt to protect the individual and/or save women’s sport from scandal (Festle 1997). In each case the participants in women’s sport have assumed that public knowledge of players’ sexuality is damaging to the sport. However, this study is one piece of evidence to the contrary.

Space does not allow us to thank each person who contributed to the development of this article. However, we must acknowledge the efforts of two outstanding individuals: Genevieve Rail of the University of Ottowa who defended us in our darkest hour and Amy Watson Ruth of the NWSA Journal who nurtured the manuscript through the final stages.

Darcy C. Plymire is an assistant professor of Kinesiology at Towson University. Her interests are sport and gender and sport and media. Correspondence should be sent to Plymire at Department of Kinesiology, Towson University, 8000 York Road, Towson, MD, 21252-0001; dplymire@towson.edu

Pamela J. Forman studies gender, organizations, and sport as a doctoral candidate in the Department of Sociology at the University of California, Davis. Her dissertation examines post-Title IX governance struggle between women’s and men’s intercollegiate athletic associations that resulted in female athletic leaders losing control over the direction of women’s sports. While a dedicated fan of women’s college basketball, she also follows the WNBA’s Washington Mystics. Correspondence should be sent to Forman at Department of Sociology, One Shields Avenue, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 75616.

Notes

1. Internet users do not typically proofread their postings. To keep the flavor of the medium and to avoid changing the authors’ intended meanings we have not edited the postings for spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar.

2. Each participant was assigned an identifying number. For example, our first contributor is contributor number 1, the second is 2, and so on. Since some contributors posted more than one message, each posting was assigned a letter as well, e.g., 1A, 1B, and so on.

References

Allen, Louise. 1997. The Lesbian Idol: Martina, KD, and the Consumption Of Lesbian Masculinity. Washington, D.C.: Cassell.

Baym, Nancy K. 1995. “The Emergence of Community in Computer-Mediated Communication.” In Cybersociety: Computer-Mediated Communications and Community, ed. Steven G. Jones, 138–64. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Binik, Yitzchak M., James Cantor, Eric Ochs, and Mark Meana. 1997. “From the Couch to the Keyboard: Psychotherapy in Cyberspace.” In Culture of the Internet, ed. Sara Keisler, 71–100. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Blasius, Mark, and Shane Phelan. 1997. We Are Everywhere: A Historical Source­book of Gay and Lesbian Politics. New York: Routledge.

Blinde, Elaine, and Diane Taub. 1992. “Women Athletes as Falsely Accused Deviants: Managing the Lesbian Stigma.” Sociological Quarterly 33:521–34.

Cahn, Susan K. 1993. “From the ‘Muscle Moll’ to the ‘Butch’ Ballplayer: Mannishness, Lesbianism, and Homophobia in U.S. Women’s Sport.” Feminist Studies 19:343–68.

———. 1994. Coming on Strong: Gender and Sexuality in Twentieth-Century Women’s Sport. New York: The Free Press.

———. 1996. “‘So Far Back in the Closet We Can’t Even See the Keyhole’: Lesbianism, Homophobia, and Sexual Politics in Collegiate Women’s Athletics.” In The New Lesbian Studies: Into the Twenty-First Century, eds. Bonnie Zimmerman and Toni A. H. McNaron, 215–23. New York: The Feminist Press.

Chan, Connie S. 1996. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Know: Sexual Identity and Expression Among East Asian-American Lesbians.” In The New Lesbian Studies: Into the Twenty-First Century, eds. Bonnie Zimmerman and Toni A. H. McNaron, 91–7. New York: The Feminist Press.

Clark, Danae. 1993. “Commodity Lesbianism,” In The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader, eds. Henry Abelove, MichPle Aina Barale, and David Halperin, 186–201. New York: Routledge.

Crossett, Todd W. 1995. Outsiders in the Clubhouse: The World of Women’s Professional Golf. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Cutler, Richard H. 1996. “Technologies, Relations, and Selves.” In Communication and Cyberspace: Social Interaction in an Electronic Environment, eds. Lance Strate, Ronald Jacobson, and Stephanie B. Gibson, 317–33. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

DeMotier, Beren. 1998. “Women’s Basketball Breeds New Class of Fans.” The Washington Blade, 16 January, 29.

Festle, Mary Jo. 1997. Playing Nice: The Politics and Apologies of Women’s Sport. New York: Columbia University Press.

Felshin, Jan. 1974. “The Triple Options . . . For Women in Sport.” Quest 21:36–40.

Finnerty, Amy, and Cammille Sweeney. 1997. “Narrative Threads. Fashions of the Times, the Height of Emotion.” New York Times Magazine, 24 August, S 26–40.

Fisher, M. 1998. “Caught in the Mystics’ Net.” The Washington Post, 4 August, C1, C8.

Foster, Derek. 1997. “Community and Identity in the Electronic Village.” In Internet Culture, ed. David Porter, 23–37. New York: Routledge.

Galst, Liz. 1997. “Fair game?” Out, November, 86–90, 150–2.

Griffin, Pat. 1998. Strong Women, Deep Closets: Lesbians and Homophobia in Sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Gurak, Laura J. 1997. Persuasion and Privacy in Cyberspace: The Online Protests Over Lotus Market Place and the Clipper Chip. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Hammonds, Evelyn. 1997. “Black (W)holes and the Geometry of Black Female Sexuality.” In Feminism Meets Queer Theory, eds. Elizabeth Weed and Naomi Schor, 136–56. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Hoffer, Richard. 1993. “Cheryl Miller.” Sports Illustrated, 6 December, 48–9.

“It’s Not Miller Time.” 1994. Sports Illustrated, 11 April, 17.

Krane, Vicki. 1996. “Lesbians in Sport: Toward Acknowledgment, Understanding and Theory.” Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 18:237–46.

Knapp, James A. 1997. “Essayistic Messages: Internet Newsgroups as an Electronic Public Sphere.” In Internet Culture, ed. David Porter, 181–97. New York: Routledge.

Lenskyj, Helen. 1986. Out of Bounds: Women, Sport, and Sexuality. Toronto, Canada: The Women’s Press.

———. 1991. “Combating Homophobia in Sport and Physical Education.” Sociology of Sport Journal 8:61–9.

———. 1994. “Sexuality and Femininity in Sport Contexts: Issues and Alternatives.” Journal of Sport and Social Issues 18:356–76.

Levinson, Paul. 1997. The Soft Edge: The Natural History and Future of the Information Revolution. New York: Routledge.

Lorde, Audre. 1984. Sister Outsider. Freedom, CA: The Crossing Press.

Mayne, Judith. 1996. “Screening Lesbians.” In The New Lesbian Studies: Into the Twenty-First Century, eds. Bonnie Zimmerman and Toni A. H. McNaron, 165–71. New York: The Feminist Press.

Millard, William B. 1997. “I Flamed Freud: A Case of Incendiary Teletextual Incendiarism.” In Internet Culture, ed. David Porter, 145–59. New York: Routledge.

Mitra, Ananda. 1997. “Virtual Commonality: Looking for India on the Internet.” In Virtual Culture: Identity & Communication in Cybersociety, ed. Steven G. Jones, 55–79. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Paccagnella, Luciano. 1997. “Getting the Seats of Your Pants Dirty: Strategies for Ethnographic Research on Virtual Communities.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communications 3 (June):1–18. Available at www.jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol3/issue1/paccagnella.html. Accessed on 11/13/99.

Peper, Karen. 1994. “Female Athlete = Lesbian: A Myth Constructed from Gendex Role Expectations and Lesbiphobia.” In Queer Words, Queer Images, ed. R. Jeffrey Ringer, 193–208. New York: New York University Press.

Poster, Mark. 1997. “Cyberdemocray: Internet and the Public Sphere.” In Internet Culture, ed. David Porter, 201–17. New York: Routledge.

Plymire, Darcy C., and Pamela J. Forman. 2000. “Breaking the Silence: Lesbian Fans, the Internet, and the Sexual Politics of Women’s Sport.” Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies 5:141–53.

Rotella, Robert. J., and Mimi Murray. 1991. “Homophobia, the World of Sport, and Sport Psychology Counseling.” The Sport Psychologist 5:355–64.

Schmitz, Joseph. 1997. “Structural Relations, Electronic Media, and Social Change: The Public Electronic Network and the Home.” In Virtual Culture: Identity & Communication in Cybersociety, ed. Steven G. Jones, 80–101. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schwartz, Deb. 1997. “Hoop Screams.” Out, November, 90.

Shaw, David F. 1997. “Gay Men and Computer Communication: A Discourse of Sex and Identity in Cyberspace.” In Virtual Culture: Identity & Communication in Cybersociety, ed. Steven G. Jones, 133–45. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Thompsen, Philip A. 1996. “What’s Fueling the Flames in Cyberspace? A Social Influence Model.” In Communication in Cyberspace: Social Interaction in an Electronic Environment, eds. Lance Strate, Ronald Jacobson, and Stephanie B. Gibson, 297–315. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Turkle, Sherry. 1997a. “Constructions and Reconstructions of Self in Virtual Reality: Playing in the MUDs.” In Culture of the Internet, ed. Sara Keisler, 143–56. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

———. 1997b. “Multiple Subjectivity and Virtual Community at the end of the Freudian Century.” Sociological Inquiry 67:72–84.

Walker, Lisa M. 1993. “How to Recognize a Lesbian: The Cultural Politics of Looking Like What You Are.” Signs 18:866–90.

Watson, Nessim. 1997. “Why We Argue About Virtual Community: A Case Study of the Phish.Net Fan Community.” In Virtual Culture: Identity & Communication in Cybersociety, ed. Steven G. Jones, 103–32. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wolf, Alecia. 1998. “Exposing the Great Equalizer: Demythologizing Internet Equity.” In Cyberghetto or Cybertopia?: Race, Class, and Gender on the Internet, ed. Bosah Ebo, 15–32. Westport, CT: Praeger.

 

IU Press Journals
Home Page
More about NWSA Journal
Library
Recommendation
Advance
Information
Tables of
Contents
Copyright
Clearance