Tuesday, March 16th, 2010 at 2:35 pm  |  158 responses

Brittney Feared

When the hype was young for Brittney Griner.

brittney_griner_1
Photo by Jamie Conlan
Originally published in SLAM 124

Think about what you’re saying about Brittney Griner. Yes, she cleaned someone’s clock recently. No, that’s not clean play. But before you go off on her — the most physically gifted 19-year-old woman ever — try to remember what it’s like to be 6-8, female, and dominant at the game basketball. That’s right, you can’t.

  • Add a Comment
  • Share
  • RSS

Tags: , , ,

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    “Simple minds seek simple explanations…” Me.

  • Diesel

    “I don’t need to read a book what I can experience for myself out in the real world” – me

  • Diesel

    ps – you bother the sh*t out of me. you and gloria allred

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    You don’t bother me at all.
    You amuse me greatly. Arrogantly ignorant and proud of it.
    The sheer idiocy of thinking that in the 70-80 years you have on this planet you can “experience” enough to eliminate the need for books, is quite hilarious.
    Examine your thinking critically, and see what happens.

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp
  • Diesel

    I don’t think there is no need for books. I just think its really stupid to come on to a BASKETBALL website and over analyze to death the writings of karl marx and nietzsche in hopes to sway someone’s opinion. Do you really think people think brittney looks like less of a man after all that you and matt posted? I think everyone involved forgot what they were even arguing about in the first place. My ‘ignorance’ and thinking is a result of my life experiences throughout my 28 years. Its going to take more than a quick post on SLAM to sway my deep rooted personal beliefs. I consistently challenge and mock you not because i don’t agree with you (I disagree with most of the time but I occasionally agree with some things) but because I think you’re doing it in the wrong forums. Use this site as a place to talk about basketball and take jabs at each other/the players. Because if you feel you’re posts on THIS sight are going to inspire or change anyone, you’re wrong.

  • http://dsfjklf.com Jukai

    G, they told me I should come down cousin, but I flatly refuse I ain’t dumb down

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    Diesel
    When exactly was the meeting held where it was decided that the only topics of conversation permitted on this site were about basketball and making fun of players and each other?
    Was there a handout?
    Why do you find it entertaining to ridicule strangers anonymously?
    Do you ridicule strangers in person?
    90 percent of my comments are about basketball.
    You’re trying to control the other 10 percent, but that’s really not going to happen.
    The truth is, I do change folks. Ask the cats who interact with me regularly on this site. Jukai, Bryan, Moose, Eboy, Myles, and all the others who have debated issues with me.
    I make them think about what they’re writing before they write it. I make them rethink their entrenched positions, and consider them from another perspective.
    And they do the same with me.
    You challenge and mock me because I refuse to allow you to behave the way you want without making my opinion known.
    You would prefer if I shut up and stayed in my place.
    That is really, REALLY not going to happen.
    But continue to play your role. The only way you could be a more perfect foil would be if I made you up as an alias.

  • Diesel

    Have you ever considered that YOU’RE the arrogant idiot? That you’re so rooted in your ways of looking at everything through your racial undertone glasses that you don’t see what’s truly happening? I don’t want to start a whole debate with you on politics but the article is basically saying that if Obama didn’t win the election it would have been because people were scared by a black man’s success and wouldn’t vote for him because they couldn’t handle it?…that they don’t know how to handle a succsseful black man? I think most black people NEED to believe that so that they can justify their failures. Obama and everyone supporting him would be able to say “well, white people didn’t want a black man as president so that’s why we lost”. But then you don’t give the geenral population credit when you consider that there’s no way Obama wins if a majority of the white people in america didn’t vote for him. It wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that he and mr emanual have been tied to several high profile illinois corruption schemes, or that he never truly took a stance on the majority of the topics during the debates. Could it be that people sided with McCain because they thought he had more experience? And that they believed in his ideas? Why does it have to be because they can’t handle a black man’s success?

  • http://dsfjklf.com Jukai

    Diesel: Not to call a spade a spade, but you’re beginning an argument with Allenp off topic, which is exactly what you just threw a sh*t fit about.

  • Diesel

    Touché

    My bad.

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    Diesel
    You really, REALLY need to embrace facts.
    For example, what percentage of white voters actually voted for Barack Obama?
    All predictions were that it would be 44 percent, and the actual numbers were right around there.
    So, I didn’t major in math, but I’m willing to wager that 44 percent is not a “majority” in any country in the world. But, maybe your superior grasp of logic and reasoning can show me the truth.
    So, how exactly did a “majority” white people vote for Obama?
    Also, white folks make up roughly 65 percent of the population here in America. That means that 35 percent of the population is non-white, correct?
    So, if Obama had overwhelmining support among blacks, who make up 12-13 percent of the pop, very solid support among latinos, who make up 13 percent of the pop, and fairly good support among all other minorities, why would he need the “majority” of white people to win anything?
    Actually DO THE MATH SON.
    See, this is why books and reading are important. You can actually learn things if you read stuff that challenges your arrogantly incorrect worldview.
    Bill Clinton didn’t get the “majority” of white people to vote for him. And he was still elected. You don’t need the “majority” you just need enough white voters to combine with your support among other groups.
    Which is what Democrats have been doing since the Republicans unvieled the Southern Strategy as an off-shoot of the civil rights movement.
    Reading is fundamental.

  • http://dsfjklf.com Jukai

    Allen, do you think I was afraid and jealous of a black man’s success when I was undecided on who to vote for (McCain or Obama) before McCain picked Palin as the VP? Was I afraid and jealous when I voted for Hilary in the primaries? I’ve agreed with everything you’ve posted here, but the article was relatively insulting.

  • Diesel

    Once again you’ve taken a small portion of my argument and over analyzed it to hell. My point is that the article that you linked to…its entire argument is rooted in the belief that “It is impossible that anybody has objectively considered John McCain and Sarah Palin and decided that they are more qualified to run this country than Barack Obama and Joe Biden” WHY THE F*CK is that a given? Please tell me what obama did in his 4 years in illinois that would make him more qualified then mccain and his 30 years? I’m from illinois and I’ll answer it for you…obama did absolutely nothing in his time in illinois…instead he was prepping for his run for the presidency from the second after he gave his speech at the democratic convention. What I’m asking you..and what I’ve always tried to point out to you, is to ask yourself if its racist for a majority of the black population to vote for Obama based soley on the color of his skin? In illinois the news crews were out in downtown chicago when obama won…they were in a predominently black community which was celebrating. They came up to a young black male and asked him why he voted for obama..which one of his views did he agree with.. and he looked like a deer caught in headlights. he had no idea. because the only reason he voted for obama was because he’s black. Isn’t that racist?…not even considering mccain because he’s white? Practice what you preach is what I’m akways trying to get through to you.

  • Diesel

    With that said I’m not replying to any more posts on this page. I’m not going to do what I was just complaining about as Jukai pointed out.

  • The Philosopher

    Some people seem to have a God complex.

  • frank

    Just scrolled through these comments and thought i’d say WHO CARES. Seriously, you’re arguing about sexism on a basketball website.

  • The Philosopher

    I’ve been around all types of women.And I mean ALL TYPES OF WOMEN. And I’m sure some people on SLAM can vouch for this: She isn’t THE MOST “manly” looking girl on the block, let me tell it.

  • The Philosopher

    And I agree with Frank ten million percent, I mean, some of these folks, Frank…….

  • http://www.realcavsfans.com Anton

    Mama there goes that man

  • http://www.broy7.com nate the great

    Shes a man. im sorry. im not sexiest. just honest.

  • http://www.broy7.com nate the great
  • http://slamonline.com Ben Osborne

    14 Blocks last night. Respect.

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    The caption on the picture that is the point of this thread was about the Brittney Griner’s game. It noted that despite the fact that she punched a woman recently, she’s probably the most talented and dominant women’s player in a generation.
    Yet, 80 percent to 90 percent of the comments were about how she looks. I have yet to find a comment that attempts to dissect her game, or her impact.
    If cats don’t see the sexism and disrespect in that, then they don’t want to see it. You all prefer ignorance, probably ’cause it’s easier. Spending 100 comments making fun of the looks of a random stranger is utterly ridiculous on a “basketball” website.
    Jukai
    Sorry if you were insulted, that wasn’t my intention. The intention was to point out that people actually were complaining that Barack Obama was “too smart.”
    When did being intelligent become a drawback? How does it make sense to want to elect somebody to serve as the political leader of a complex and diverse country like America who ISN’T smart? Why did it make sense for people to attack Obama as an “egghead”?
    Doesn’t that strike you as a patently ridiculous stance to take? Basically people were saying that even though they weren’t qualified to be president of the United States, they wanted to elect a candidate that was just like them. That’s freaking asinine, in my opinion. If I can’t do a job, why would I hire somebody who is just as qualified as I am?
    The crux of my argument in that post was that when I compared Barack Obama and Joe Biden to McCain/Palin it was impossible for me to see how anyone could believe the Republican duo were the Democratic duo’s intellectual equal. Thus, there must be a different criteria being applied, and I offered an opinion on why that criteria was being used. I only applied that opinion to a segment of the population, but I think it was justified.
    I could go into a longer discussion on the topic, but I won’t.

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    Diesel
    You wrote that it would have been impossible for Obama to win without the majority of white people supporting him, when that is obviously a lie.
    I can see how it would be my fault for pointing out that glaring whole in your logic, and I can totally see how that whole comment about the majority of white people supporting Obama was immaterial to your argument. It had nothing to do with your main point that black people love to blame their failures on everybody else, and that without the support of white people black people would have accomplished nothing.
    I was totally off base, I’m sure.
    Here’s the thing. You’re upset with what I wrote despite the fact that I clearly outlined my logic. It’s fine to disagree with me, but you’re actually upset that I would even write something like that.
    But you’re not upset that people are comparing a random 18-year old girl to a man. That there has been a rush to find the next creative way to call her a man.
    That doesn’t bother you. In fact, by your logic, since YOU think she looks like a man, it’s perfectly all right for folks to make fun of her.
    So, to recap, your upset about what I wrote based on what I saw, despite the absence of crude jokes or insults, you’re not upset about what you and others wrote despite the inclusion of crude jokes and insults.
    Gotcha.

  • The Philosopher

    A lot of people in the world have this insatiable need to feel like they’re right about something. Why? Is it that important? Does it help one’s man/womanhood? Does one wake up the next morning feeling that they did a good deed for society because they merely felt like they were right about something?

  • The Philosopher

    As a people, we are a violent, hateful species. Hate is in our DNA, and this topic of discussion just further proves it. Like Allen P said, a lot of us don’t want to talk about her game. Must be too boring, so people go on to say hateful things about the girl. And she probably is a sweet girl.

  • http://dsfjklf.com Jukai

    Allenp: I get the gist of the article. Sarah Palin really solidified the deal for me. To this day, I still don’t understand how any true American could genuinely think Sarah Palin should run any portion of our government. She had so many skeletons in her closet, they were uncountable, they tripled her IQ level. But, more importantly, it showed that McCain put ‘politics first’ and pretty much showed me the old McCain I used to admire was dead, lost in a party who knew how to run a great campaign but not a country.
    But was Obama the clear superior over McCain before their VPs were picked? Ehhhh…

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    Jukai
    To me, intellectually, yes.
    My post was about the anti-intellectual movement that continues to be a problem in the country.
    It’s not cool, not to think.
    No matter what you’re discussing, you should be able to think critically. Basketball, football, race, religion, politics, women, whatever.
    The idea that you should suspend your reasoning power, or ignore all outside factors when discussing sports is just an off-shoot of the general anti-intellectual movement.
    That post was speaking to another aspect, but I’m sure you’ve noticed the exact same thing right here on this thread.
    There is hostility towards thinking.
    Sad days man.

  • http://dsfjklf.com Jukai

    Allenp: What you’re considering a ‘movement’ I’d consider ‘status quo’
    I just don’t see how you’re applying it to the discussions here. Unless you’re getting aggravated at the people telling everyone to stay on topic and not discuss philosophers and sexism on a boring-ass Sunday.

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    Jukai
    The discussion on this thread, or the discussion on Slam in general? If you don’t see how it applies to this specific discussion, then we just see things differently.
    Besides, exactly what is the “topic” that everyone stayed on in this thread?
    The idea that Brittney Griner “looks like a man”?
    How did that become the topic of the thread?

  • http://dsfjklf.com Jukai

    We do see things differently. This isn’t about some tea party member on the street arguing against healthcare when he doesn’t know one thing about the bill… this was just a random grouping of arguments, mostly for me, over relatively odd issues.
    I was arguing with Matt over how he uses metaphysics as a buffet
    I was arguing with Mauritz over a semantics error on my part
    And I dun even really know what I’m discussing with you
    But I don’t get what you’re talking about with this anti-intellectual movement. Are you angry with Diesel? Diesel had some good points but they were ushered between bad generalizations and awkward phrasings. I don’t think he was being intelligently dishonest or intelligently ignorant.
    I think you’re taking this a bit too far because you don’t agree with his half-truths.

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    The complaints that this is a basketball website and thus not the place for discussions about sexism, racism or Germans had an anti-intellectual vibe, in my opinion.
    Sports do not exist in a vacuum. It is quite possible that a basketball related topic could involve discussion of all three of those things, and in my opinion it’s not an example of people over-thinking or introducing unimportant stuff to a discussion.
    Besides, if it’s a random grouping of arguments, then why the repeated comments about “staying on topic.”
    On the Diesel issue, this is a carryover from the other post on Griner where he repeatedly called her an animal.
    I guess it’s an improvement that she’s now joined the human race, even if she’s the wrong gender.
    If you’re going to make an argument, actually use facts. Don’t twist information, don’t twist my arguments. If you can’t be bothered with “books” or “facts” or outside sources, but you still think your opinion is valid simply because you believe it, then you are arrogantly ignorant.
    YOu don’t care that you don’t know that you’re wrong, you’re right simply because you say so. That’s how you can build an argument around the premise that Barack Obama got the majority of white people to vote for him, when he was only supported by 44 percent of white voters.
    That’s how you can build an argument that McCain and Palin were the intellectual equals of Biden and Obama. (Which was one of the points of the piece, not the idea that if you vote for McCain you must hate black people. That’s idiotic. Some people actually do support what McCain represents, but that doesn’t mean that McCain/Palin was on the same intellectual plane as Obama/Biden. You can argue about who you think would be a better president, but let’s not even pretend there’s an argument about who has shown themselves to be smarter.)
    Ignoring facts that challenge your viewpoint allows you to make any argument you want to make. In all of our arguments on this site about Steve Nash, have I ever once said “Nash is bum. He just can’t play. He’s all hype.”
    No, never. Why? Because that would be an outright lie and building an argument on a lie is arrogant and dishonest.
    Where did I say black people should vote for Obama simply because he’s black?
    Where did I say that I didn’t support McCain and Palin because they were white?
    I never said any of those things, but that’s what cats want to argue.
    You and I have discussed many topics and we have vastly different views on the world, but we have developed a grudging respect for one another because we both understand that the other person is not going lie and make things up to win a discussion or argument. You and I may spin statistics or facts, but we’re not going to just make stuff up. And when we do make a mistake we say “Yeah, my bad, I effed up there, so I really have to retract that position I was taking.”
    If you don’t have that, or if you don’t think that’s necessary, that’s arrogant and it’s dishonest.

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    Oh, and “half-truths” are lies.

  • Diesel

    Alright, I said I wouldn’t respond but I can’t take this anymore. First off, I didn’t say there’s no place for intellect in these threads. What I did say was that it seemed like you guys were analyzing racism and sexism to such minute detail that the people involved and everyone reading, had forget what you were even talking about. I was just trying to say lets move on. Especially considering you were the one preaching that commenting on Brittney’s looks had nothing to do with the topic of the article. My comment about books is a reference to my previous e-beefs with Allen in which he sites numerous books he read on a certain topic, but he rarely provides his real life experiences. He’s like a retarded version of Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting. At no point did I say that I couldn’t be bothered by facts or outside sources. That’s a generalization that you made because its easier for you to consider me an ignorant idiot than to consider that what I am saying actually has some validity. I’ll admit I made my “majority” comment in the heat of the moment without fact checking. That doesn’t change the spirit of my argument, which was that Obama got the most white votes of any Democrat in recent history. The reason I wanted to make that point is because the article you linked to…like many of the items you reference and your personal beliefs…is littered with anti-white racial undertones. As for the point that you’re trying to make with the article (which I had to decide for myself since you simply linked to it), that Obama and Biden are the intellectual superiors to McCain and Palin…I would argue that’s not based in fact either. What are your criteria for making such a statement? Are you using degree of schooling? Experience in the field? Which one is more important when trying to run the free world…a high level of schooling or a high level of experience in politics? You’re also operating under the assumption that a high level of schooling means you’re an intellect. I know a lot of people with their MBA’s that don’t know how to deposit a check at the bank or pump their own gas. It’s a personal opinion whether you value street smarts and common sense over book smarts. And I won’t even get started on Biden and his common sense. So once again, I am asking you to look at your own beliefs and analyze their roots…and if their based in facts…before you attack me for mine.

  • http://dfjklf.com Jukai

    Allen: the half-truth issue was how he expressed the massive experience difference between McCain/Obama and overlooked the experience difference between Biden/Palin. Even in his previous post, he took jab at Biden’s lack of ‘common sense’ which is really more about Biden being more honest and less political… but not a MENTION of Sarah Palin, who I consider to be the dumbest person to ever run for such a high office. And yes, I remember Dan Quayle.

  • http://dfjklf.com Jukai

    I WILL meet both of you in the middle of the road and say I don’t believe Obama is McCain’s intellectual superior, but I believe he came off as intellectually superior because a lot of the campaign that McCain was running on, McCain personally didn’t care for or believe in and couldn’t back it up properly.

  • Diesel

    Funny thing is I actually voted for Obama, but I was undecided for a long time. I just don’t like being told that if I didn’t, then I’m an idiot because Obama was clearly more intelligent and therefore the only choice.

  • matt

    I still don’t understand Jukai ‘She look like a man! Its got no basis in sexism!’ Do you really believe this? Besides the obvious argument that in the beginning you used it to debase her and then quickly switched hit your way over to the ‘I’m a man of pure empircism’ tatic, I would point out that you seriously misunderstand how those female traits you foolishly described as ‘belonging to every women’ were enframed/structured, based off of coverture laws. The legal definition of coverture made explicit that a woman’s power within marriage was her appearance. Her value within the transaction, that which she exchanged for the economic and legal ‘protection’ of her husband was her looks. That relationship today between beauty and value should be pretty obvious to even you through advertising. Now before you hit me back with “oh sure so all doctors are sexist” bs try to keep in mind what I said about language making us complicit in certain concepts, even if that complicity was not our actual intention. And keep in mind (British) empiricism orginated during this period of legal coverture. Just thought I’d have the last word!

  • http://dsfjklf.com Jukai

    Matt: that’s just… okay, I’m not going to use ‘untrue’ because maybe this subject is certainly not my specialty, BUT, to my knowledge, coverture was not solely focused on a female’s appearance… the focus of coverture had to do with a woman’s power and wealth through her family. I’m sure a woman’s appearance played a role in any arranged transaction, but coverture, in the sense you’re describing legally, was about power and wealth. I’ve given this a brief google search and I can’t really find anything about appearance.
    And empirical knowledge had been around during the time of the Greeks, so your last statement I can say is untrue with 100% certainty.
    And you still haven’t acknowledged that, while you keep trying to prove that every rebuttal I use is a ‘biased classification,’ you’re using a ‘biased classification’ in the word sexism.
    Look, I’ll stop picking at your iffy-logic and go back to the main premise: I made a semantics error by saying “all women have similar anatomical features” and that is untrue. Griner is living proof that it is untrue. But women all HAVE similar features, and many of them are non-societal, and many of them, Griner lacks. So, while Allenp made a good point about the underlying sexism that ‘female ballers can’t play so if she’s good, she must be male,’ I think what you’re trying to prove is, for a lack of a better term, horse sh*t.
    Good day.

  • http://dsfjklf.com Jukai

    Damnit, I did it again: MOST women have similar features… or the AVERAGE woman has similar features… damn, I need coffee..

  • Get a job

    Youall have too much free time

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    Diesel
    If I were you, I’d check that stat that says Obama got the highest percentage of the white vote for a Democrat in recent history. Just do a little research.

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    And why would I use my personal experiences to make a point to you, or anyone else?
    My personal experiences differ vastly from yours, and Jukai’s and the vast majority of the cats who post on SLAM.
    So, I used easily verfiable information that can show you how what I’m saying has been backed up by numerous studies and statistics.
    You’re asking me to depend on anecdotes, which you can’t even verify, instead of giving you information you can verify on your own.
    Yet, I’m pretty certain that if I spoke mainly from my personal experiences, which typically back up the research, there would be someone who would tell me I can’t use anecdotes to make sweeping statements of fact.
    It’s a lose/lose situation.
    Finally, my very first comment on this thread noted that I believe this young lady’s “masculine” appearance has affected how people viewed her punch. I’ve also repeatedly said that it’s quite ridiculous to make these sort of hateful comments about a stranger. I didn’t introduce sexism or racism to the discussion, I just commented on the posts of others.
    The main problem is that folks don’t want anyone interrupting their fun. Which in this case involved making “man jokes” about a young woman. Any attempt to point out the problem with this practice, which is was Matt did early on, was met with scorn and refusal to consider your actions.
    That’s fine. People gonna’ do what they want.
    And so am I.

  • Diesel

    I did fact check my comments. Obama received more white votes then both Kerry and Gore before him. And my point on the personal experiences has to do with the fact that two people can view the same facts and form two different opinions. Its all about perception…which is, you guessed it, influenced by life experiences and envirnoment. I’m not asking you to talk about personal experiences when you’re talking baout steve nash. But when you come on these threads and infer that white people won’t hire black people…and that white people won’t vote for Obama..your ‘facts’ don’t prove your point like you think they do. That 44% can be perceived many different ways. You’re thinking why wasn’t it higher and I’m seeing it as higher than its been in the past 8 years for a democrat. And with that said, this time I really am done with this thread.

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    Diesel
    No, I didn’t say white people wouldn’t vote for Obama.
    That’s a ridiculous comment, since he would have never won the Democratic primary if that was the case.
    Nor did I say white people won’t hire black people.
    I’m black and just about every job I’ve gotten has been working for white folks.
    Again, you have crafted a strawman argument, to buttress your points. It’s really quite sad.
    If you have a question about what I think, ask me. If you don’t care what I think, then don’t put words in my mouth.
    Saying that 44 percent is a “majority” is not a matter of perception. It’s an outright lie, that vastly skews reality.
    I never said “why wasn’t it higher.”
    I said “That’s not a majority.”
    You created an argument, created comments from me in that argument, and then proceeded to try to dismantle my fictional comments.
    There is no need to “infer” what I meant, I said what I meant.
    But, keep on doing you.

  • Tron

    Diesel Posted: Mar.22 at 7:56 pm

    McCain is gonna croak anyways he looks unhealthy

  • the nerve

    No disrespect ~ But soon as he Obama won a lot of white called a black radio station . Some were mad, some were hoping it would bring us together, but people should not fear, because he is both races and all black guys love white women .

  • matt

    Time and again science has studied “the laws of nature” to reveal a female nature suspiciously consonant with woman’s assigned social role and its accompanying feminine ideal under patriarchy. Also I made it clear I was referencing British Empiricism, which was the basis for the Enlightenment and the scientific advancement of the west. Jukai, you fail again.

  • http://fdjsklf.com Jukai

    Okay Matt, how do I fail when a) your entire post was about ‘coverture’ which has nothing to do with this Time and again science article… which then has nothing to do with “British Empiricism” and b) British Empiricism -I’m positive- began in the 17th century, and coverture in terms of a legal sense began at the start of the 19th century (according to wikipedia).
    So, don’t tell me I fail when you really don’t seem to have any idea of what you’re talking about. Look up these topics and be positive you’re not making a fool out of yourself.
    I know, I’m still picking at your logic and not addressing the main point, but your logic is hideously flawed. I’m sure the Time and Again science article has some validity to it, after all, rich men are going to get their trophy wives, you are right. What you really should be focusing on is what masculinity has meant over the years, since I am referring to Brittney as looking very manly.
    Or, just stop making up these bizarre, flawed arguments and just tell me you’re not alright with me making fun of Griner. Whatever.

Advertisement
Counterkicks
Fullcourt.com