Yes, the WBB conundrum is a very interesting social issue. The debate over the direction of WBB is in my view closely linked to a debate within feminism itself. Title IX (passed in 1972) came from that branch of feminism (generally called "liberal feminism") that emphasized legal equality and the ability of women to compete on an equal footing with men in every sphere.
But feminist theory in the 1980s began to evolve in an interesting way. As 2nd and 3rd wave feminism took root, an increasing number of theorists suggested that treating women equally does not mean treating women the same as men: it means giving equal value to the qualities that women have as we would give to the qualities that men have. Sometimes the theories differed over the biological or cultural origins of those differences, but they agreed that our society had been structured to value those qualities that seemed distinct to men and devalue those qualities that seemed distinct to women.
Needless to say, this view was highly controversial and much debated, and disturbed some advocates of earlier kinds of feminism, since it was feared that taking that view would perpetuate mythology about the abilities of women.
And that brings us to basketball. There are two schools of thought about WBB and they correspond very closely with the two branches of feminism.
1) Liberal feminism emphasized legal equality. By this view, women should play by the same rules as men, and they should generally complete with the same techniques, the same aggression, the same sized ball, the same three point shooting line, the same height rim, the same strategies, etc.
2) More recent feminism emphasizes valuing women qua women. By this view, WBB should not be the same as MBB. The ball can be smaller (it is), the rim can be lower (it is not, although Geno thinks it should be, and I think he is wrong about that,) the three point line can be closer (it is.) But perhaps more important are more subtle rules. Should fouls in the women's game be called differently than they are in the men's, to encourage a style of game that is more unique to women? This is the absolute essence of the debate.
I agree with Chimera's many posts on this--I would rather see the women's game develop into something quite different from the men's game, emphasizing passing, movement, strategy, even grace. This would mean calling the game much closer and thus rewarding skilled players over strong players, rewarding deception over brawn, making the game more of a team game of strategy and tactics and less of a game about individual achievement. The ideal is for assists to nearly equal made baskets--something close defenses absolutely prevent. And if called tightly, close defenses become non viable, scoring and passing go up, and the game becomes more exciting and fluid for spectators to watch.
I still think WBB will maximize its attendance and revenues not by imitating MBB but by offering a unique and beautiful product. Fans would go to MBB expecting to see a game of power and aggression, and to WBB expecting to see a game of movement and grace, and come away from each experience entertained, but in different ways.
But sometimes I think exactly the opposite is taking place. Women, on average, are not physically as fast, or as tall, or as quick as men, nor as massive as men. A close defense, involving pushing and shoving and hacking, is therefore MORE effective against women than it is against men. If referees call the women's game identically to the men's game it produces a different result--the women's game becomes MORE defensive, lower scoring, and generally uglier, unless you have those rare women who are truly gifted in playing through all the hacks and contact, like Carrington--the exceptions who prove the rule.
The women's game needs to be called tighter than the men's game, not looser. "Let 'em play" is a recipe for ugliness on the women's side.
Do you hear me, Missy Barlow?
But feminist theory in the 1980s began to evolve in an interesting way. As 2nd and 3rd wave feminism took root, an increasing number of theorists suggested that treating women equally does not mean treating women the same as men: it means giving equal value to the qualities that women have as we would give to the qualities that men have. Sometimes the theories differed over the biological or cultural origins of those differences, but they agreed that our society had been structured to value those qualities that seemed distinct to men and devalue those qualities that seemed distinct to women.
Needless to say, this view was highly controversial and much debated, and disturbed some advocates of earlier kinds of feminism, since it was feared that taking that view would perpetuate mythology about the abilities of women.
And that brings us to basketball. There are two schools of thought about WBB and they correspond very closely with the two branches of feminism.
1) Liberal feminism emphasized legal equality. By this view, women should play by the same rules as men, and they should generally complete with the same techniques, the same aggression, the same sized ball, the same three point shooting line, the same height rim, the same strategies, etc.
2) More recent feminism emphasizes valuing women qua women. By this view, WBB should not be the same as MBB. The ball can be smaller (it is), the rim can be lower (it is not, although Geno thinks it should be, and I think he is wrong about that,) the three point line can be closer (it is.) But perhaps more important are more subtle rules. Should fouls in the women's game be called differently than they are in the men's, to encourage a style of game that is more unique to women? This is the absolute essence of the debate.
I agree with Chimera's many posts on this--I would rather see the women's game develop into something quite different from the men's game, emphasizing passing, movement, strategy, even grace. This would mean calling the game much closer and thus rewarding skilled players over strong players, rewarding deception over brawn, making the game more of a team game of strategy and tactics and less of a game about individual achievement. The ideal is for assists to nearly equal made baskets--something close defenses absolutely prevent. And if called tightly, close defenses become non viable, scoring and passing go up, and the game becomes more exciting and fluid for spectators to watch.
I still think WBB will maximize its attendance and revenues not by imitating MBB but by offering a unique and beautiful product. Fans would go to MBB expecting to see a game of power and aggression, and to WBB expecting to see a game of movement and grace, and come away from each experience entertained, but in different ways.
But sometimes I think exactly the opposite is taking place. Women, on average, are not physically as fast, or as tall, or as quick as men, nor as massive as men. A close defense, involving pushing and shoving and hacking, is therefore MORE effective against women than it is against men. If referees call the women's game identically to the men's game it produces a different result--the women's game becomes MORE defensive, lower scoring, and generally uglier, unless you have those rare women who are truly gifted in playing through all the hacks and contact, like Carrington--the exceptions who prove the rule.
The women's game needs to be called tighter than the men's game, not looser. "Let 'em play" is a recipe for ugliness on the women's side.
Do you hear me, Missy Barlow?