The worst of it was when Lindsey's former coach, Erich Sailer, comments on her strained relationship with her father, Alan:

Alan is suffering with it. He was right in his heart. Lindsey definitely has some of her father's characteristics -- very aggressive -- but she is more of a diplomat because she has some of her mother's disposition. But as a racer, she is like her father. She would rather be dead than not succeed. Someday, after she goes through her racing career, she will have children. It will be like another life. And he'll come back into her life.

Okay, so maybe Lindsey's father and mother--divorced--really do have personalities that align with age-old gender stereotypes. Sometimes it happens (although it's always worth questioning when it comes up in such a polarized framing). But saying that this star athlete will reunite with her father once she regains her maternal instincts and leaves her sport behind, is beyond offensive (never mind, if Lindsey even wants children). It's all speculation and it's all sexist.

This latest wave of blech reminds me that the majority of mainstream media outlets still don't know how to deal with the confluence of women and competitive sports. And this ain't brand new folks; Title IX was passed in 1972. It's like otherwise excellent sports journalists' get mesmerized by the fact that their subject is, gasp, female, and end up focusing on her beauty, family drama, and/or male coaches. Enough already. I'm tired of gagging at every feel-good or poor-girl lady-athlete story.

Bill Pennington, who wrote the NYT profile, redeems himself a bit at the end by letting Lindsey herself have the last word:

So now I know that I've worked harder and prepared myself better than anyone. And I have put things in place. I have a race routine. I have a team of people helping me. I have winning habits. I believe in myself. I have balance in my life. In the end, it's a mental maturity to let your best come out.

Amen sister. Tell that to the journalists covering female athletes this winter Olympics, will ya?

Also read:
AP nominates two horses for "Female Athlete of the Year"
When Soccer Players Attack
Pregnant high school athlete faces discrimination

When I wrote my first book, Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters, I incorporated feminism into my analysis, I suggested feminism as a solution of sorts for the epidemic of perfectionism and body image distortion so rampant among my generation. But you don't find feminism anywhere in the title and that was intentional. I knew it would scare away a group of women that I hoped would read the book and, in the process, get hip to feminist ideas.

In contrast, when I was on The O'Reilly Factor, they put my professional title (called a chyron in the bizz) as simply FEMINIST. It wasn't my first choice--I would have preferred to be identified by one of the many hats I wear, including editor at Feministing.com or Senior Correspondent at The American Prospect. But I also thought it was sort of awesome. It proved that O'Reilly was truly intimidated by my feminist identity.

When and where do you claim your feminist label and when and where do you shirk it? Remember, the latter usually doesn't involve an out and out denouncement or denial of feminism's importance in your life, but it's easy to downplay that part of your politics. How do you make these context-based decisions?

In a recent post, she writes about making an argument for getting gender education in the classroom, pre-college. There is so much talk about women's studies at the university level, that we often lose track of the importance of gender education in the early years. Jiménez asked her students to write a letter to President Obama asking him to "examine the issue of gender and education with a critical eye on the ways in which feminism might be addressed in the curriculum." Here's an excerpt from one of her student's essays:

The first problem that I would like to address is the lack of intersectional feminism within education. Feminism is a wonderful example of how all social injustices interlock. In high schools on down in the education system, children are taught modified African American studies. Students are taught an even more limited version of Women's Studies. They learn nothing about the struggles of say a Japanese woman during WWII or of an Ethiopian girl's everyday life.

It is understandable that teachers cannot be expected to cram decades of struggles into 12 years of study. I just feel that there should be more time in the curriculum starting in the lower grades (if they can learn about the slave trade, they can learn about feminism) dedicated to learning about feminism and the goals behind it.

So. Awesome. I wish Ileana Jiménez could be my teacher.

Love these students! Students at John Carroll University in Ohio protested during a school basketball game over the school's unwillingness to include sexual orientation to its nondiscrimination policy.

From a student statement on YouTube:

John Carroll's mission is to create people for others. That means support, protection, love, and understanding for all people without regard to color, creed, sexual preference, gender, age, or other personal factors. That's the goal of a Jesuit institution.

By not explicitly voicing its support of LGBTQ students, faculty, and alumni, John Carroll's administration is breaking those unspoken bonds of trust that make JCU a community.

Despite support from the faculty union to include sexual orientation in the policy, the school's administration is holding firm. JCU President Robert Niehoff issued a statement saying that the policy wouldn't be changed because it goes against "traditional Catholic moral teaching."

The nondiscrimination policy is the university's promise to employees and faculty that the institution will not discriminate based on gender, religion or race. In his message earlier this week, Niehoff issued a lengthy explanation of his views that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people should be welcomed and respected at the university. He stopped short of recommending that the policy be changed, however, instead offering a "community standards statement" as a supplement to the policy.

So make the "community" accountable, but not the school, huh? Lovely.

I'm not going to link to his account, but it seems that the Twitter-feminist bashing has continued into today - complete with hackneyed comments about Birkenstocks, hairiness and having no sense of humor. I'm betting a tweet about castration is well on its way.

Via Feministe.

In the midst of a custody battle between Katie Tagle and Stephen Garcia, Tagle was trying to get supervised visitation with Garcia. She then requested an emergency restraining order against him after he sent her a text message threatening to kill her and her son. When Tagle didn't have hard proof of the texts for Judge Debra Harris because her phone was off, the emergency order was denied and a hearing was set. At the hearing, Judge David Mazurek not only denied the restraining order, but completely dismissed the fact that Garcia had physically attacked and said they should "work together":

"If I grant the restraining order, how do you think that's going to help with respect to you two being able to raise Wyatt together or work together to make sure Wyatt grows up happy and healthy?" the judge asked, according to the transcripts.

"I kind of get an idea of what's going on," Mazurek said. He denied the restraining order, saying, "I don't think that Mr. Garcia poses a threat to Ms. Tagle." Mazurek went on to suggest Tagle might have ulterior motives for alleging domestic violence. "I get concerned when there's a pending child custody and visitation issue and in between that, one party or the other claims that there's some violence in between. It raises the court's eyebrows because based on my experience, it's a way for one party to try to gain an advantage over the other," he said, according to the transcripts.

A day after the hearing, Garcia sent Tagle an email with a "story" about their relationship in which there are two endings: one with the woman returning to the man, and the other with the man killing their child. After rushing to Mazurek with the email, he then gave Tagle a restraining order. But alas, a third judge, Judge Robert Lemkau, refused to uphold the order 10 days later and forced Tagle to give Wyatt to Garcia for visitation. Wyatt was killed nearly two weeks later.

Check out the details to see exactly how this all went down. But when it comes down to it, there were three judges, and multiple incidences of violence as well as threats of murder. Just what is there to question? Cara has some great thoughts on this and the larger issue of a system that perpetuates the notion that women simply can't be trusted.