Congratulations to the U.S. Women’s Soccer National Team — and yet (plus: “from the library”)

Congratulations to the U.S. Women’s Soccer National Team — and yet (plus: “from the library”) July 6, 2015

This started out as a “from the library” style post, on the book Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything?, by Timothy Caulfield, but I realized there were important connections to the Women’s World Cup tournament as it finished yesterday, so please bear with me to the second half of the post.

*******************

The book is subtitled:  How the Famous Sell Us Elixirs of Health, Beauty, and Happiness, but it’s really divided into two parts:  the first discusses the quack diets, facial treatments, cleanses, etc., that celebrities endorse, with no scientific basis; the second discusses the ever-increasing degree to which Americans aspire to be famous.

The content isn’t anything earth-shattering, and the writing style is “meh”.  With respect to the first half — well, we all know that Hollywood stars promote remedies of various kinds that are no more effective than the patent medicines of the past.  Caulfield, as “research”, undertakes the Paltrow-endorsed “cleanse” and finds that the weight lost by the severe calorie restriction over a couple weeks is quickly regained; in addition, of course, he speaks to experts who say that claims that toxins build up in our bodies fail to understand that the function of our kidneys is exactly this, to cleanse us of toxins.  He goes to a high-end skin-care clinic, purchases and undertakes their regimen, then goes elsewhere as a test, to learn that the second expert evaluates his skin as just as bad.  He cites statistics on cosmetic surgery, the fact that actresses are treated as “washed-up” at ages which are objectively still rather young, because aging male actors are readily paired with much younger female leads.  But you knew all this.  (Though perhaps not the bit about plastic surgery in one’s nether regions, of a sort that’s not that different, in a sense, than FGM.)

The second half:  well, again, there isn’t that much that’s new, except that I hadn’t given it much thought before.  The key idea is this (going from memory and a bit of a further skim):  Americans, especially children and young adults, increasingly aspire specifically to be famous, and to seriously overestimate their chances of success.  With respect to music, acting, sports — hopefuls buy into the notion of “following your dream” and fail to comprehend, statistically, how utterly improbable it is that any one individual’ll succeed.  You’ll notice I used the word “improbable” rather than “impossible” — because there are actual famous people out there, just as there are lottery winners, and the very fact that some have achieved this goal has given the masses reason to believe it’s possible.

Caulfield also cites the “10,000 hours” notion from Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers,  only to say that practice/skill/talent is a necessary ingredient (except for [fill in the blank talentless celebrity], but luck plays a much, much larger role, and no one can will luck to happen.  It’s not just musicians who get a lucky break, or actors (and he cites interviews with well-connected people who say that these top celebrities are well aware of this); he cites sports stars whose lucky break was replacing a would-be star who was injured.  Of course, politicians experience a great deal of luck in their quest to rise to the top (Obama’s rise is an endless recitation of “lucky breaks) as well.

Ironically, those individuals who have achieved fame and celebrity aren’t, by and large, better off for it — though we may be jealous of their riches, and think we’d enjoy life so much more if we could travel to Tuscany at the drop of a hat, they are actually not any happier, as a whole, than the rest of us.

What’s more, here’s Caulfield’s bottom line (though it’s speculative and mostly in the form of a “why does this matter?” conclusion:

It seems that we are caught in a big, self-perpetuating, celebrity-fueled cycle that goes something like this:  Declining social mobility and diminishing life options lead to increasing dreams of celebrity fame and fortune.  This, in turn, enhances the power and allure of celebrity, which causes a focus (perhaps with an ever-increasing narcissistic resolve) on extrinsic aspirations that lead to less happiness and distract us (and society more generally) from actions that may enhance social mobility, such as education and advocacy for social change (p. 214).

*******************

I’d had this book sitting on my desk for a while, waiting to go back to the library, but was finally prodded to blog about it by a Chicago Tribune article from Sunday morning’s paper:  “U.S. girls, women’s soccer thriving — but pro team owner says media lagging.”  That’s the online headline.  In the paper, it reads, “As women’s soccer thrives, pro game has goals to go; The sport has never been more popular in U.S. high schools and colleges, but lack of media love limits progress of the professional ranks.”

Now, the article has the same lament you’ve surely read before:  the media is failing to devote the correct amount of attention to women’s soccer at the collegiate or professional level, which is hindering their goal of growing women’s soccer as a professional sport.  Audiences are small, TV coverage is scant.  Now, I’m not much of one for spectator sports, but I’m told, and believe, that women’s soccer, even at the highest levels, is just not as interesting to watch, in terms of its entertainment value, based on the skill and strength of the players, as a men’s team multiple notches below.  Now, of course, people watch plenty of spectator sports that aren’t very “entertaining” — when you have a loyalty to one team or another, such as a high school or college team, or you kid’s pee wee soccer team — but to insist that Americans  have a “duty” to watch women’s sports with as much interest as men’s seems to be missing an understanding of why people watch sports in the first place.  What’s more, the individuals cited in the article seem to think of the media as driving spectator interest, rather than recognizing that broadcasters do need to attain viewers in order to find paying-customer advertisers.  (Unless their approach is that cable companies should broadcast women’s sports, and customers be required to pay for it, as a sort of “public interest” programming?)

But here’s the disturbing connection between the book and the article:  according to women’s soccer promoters, girls need to see professional women’s soccer players, and need to have the dream of one day playing soccer professionally, in order to be motivated to play soccer themselves.

“It’s so important for girls to have professional sports to be inspired to play for,” said defender Taryn Hemmings, who also plays in Denmark and Australia. “The more we can get women’s soccer out there, the better. It helps young girls have dreams, be inspired.

Plus:

Both coaches [two high school coaches interviewed for the article] said the World Cup contributes to kids’ interest in the sport, but the lack of a high-paying professional system causes some talented players and their parents to put a limit on their ambitions.

“It becomes more of an issue when they’re deciding whether to play college or not, because some players recognize you can’t make a career of soccer, so they focus on a degree rather than playing,” Owens said. “I’ve definitely heard parents say that.”

Now, the women on the U.S. national team have worked hard and are deservedly proud of their accomplishment, and their success highlights the popularity of travel soccer as a sport for athletically-oriented young girls, and high school and college soccer play for older girls and young women.  If women’s soccer becomes a popular spectator sport, that’s great, too — though I’m doubtful this would happen except via pressure on corporate sponsors or broadcasters.

But to imagine that we need to create a high-paying professional system out of thin air in order to get girls to aspire to a sports career just as short-sightedly as boys do?  No, thank you.

Look, none of my kids participate in team sports, for multiple reasons, though we try to encourage them to be physically active in different ways.  Other kids love sports — hockey, baseball, soccer, whatever — and that’s great.  But if you need to create the carrot of dreams of a professional career in order to want to play, then the parents, coaches, and organizers are doing it wrong.  (Of course, that carrot already exists, given the number of parents who push their kids in the hopes of college scholarships, especially with Title IX parity requirements.)  Here’s an idea: why not create an environment in which kids enjoy sports, rather than this ratcheting-up of expectations and practice-time demands?


Browse Our Archives