A six-year-old girl looks to the night sky for her mother, who passed away the day before.  The girl's father asks her which star is her mom, his wife.  After scanning the points of light, she picks one out and reassures her dad that their loved one is not alone... and neither are they.*

But at one time, this little girl's mother -- before she was a wife, before she was a mother -- chose to be alone in the Alaskan wilderness, forty miles from her nearest neighbor.  She preferred kinship with animals and nature to the city life and crowds she grew up with.  She lived in that isolated spot for nine years, but within the first four months, realized that she that even someone as independent as herself did need people.

And in her 51 years, inspired more people than she ever would have imagined.

As I write this, a memorial service at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks celebrates the life of Susan Butcher, who lost her battle to leukemia four weeks ago.  Butcher's legacy is strongly tied to the Iditarod, the 1,152-mile dog sled race from Anchorage to Nome held in March every year.  As the first musher to win the race in three consecutive years, she literally broke trail for others.

And metaphorically, she created a smoother route for many as well.

She chose an unconventional path for herself, making decisions based on her passions and making those decisions work because of her intensity.  Her interest in animals led her to study some veterinary science, but ultimately college did not suit her.  Partly because of her dyslexia, partly because of her desire to be outside and working, not waiting to earn her degree.

So life became her university and the purchase of a Siberian Husky pup put dog sled racing on her radar.  A chance comment about the dog's lineage caught Butcher's interest and at age 20, she moved to Alaska, where she became a protege of Iditarod founder, Joe Redington, Sr.

At the time she entered the race in 1978, only three women had ever completed the challenging distance.  Butcher wanted to win.  In the male-dominated sport, she struggled to be accepted and respected.  Once she started posting good results, there was resentment.  Her talent and hard work were dismissed as luck.  One year, a group of the male racers even worked together in attempt to thwart her.

For her first victory in 1986, she had to chase down Joe Garnie, who had passed her 44 miles from the finish.  She then won the next two years and again in 1990.  The woman, who as a girl could not find any female role models living the kind of life she wanted, became a role model for mushers of all levels and genders.  And she was one of the first to make a living in the sport, to become a professional.

In those days, it was trial and error.  There were no training manuals.  Well-known author Gary Paulsen, who documents his poignant and hilariously haphazard introduction to the race in his book Winterdance, modeled his sled after Butcher's.  As he writes, "Might as well copy the best."  And she is still widely considered the best.

Butcher was admired for her strong teams of dogs and intense approach to training.  Twelve to 16-hour days, seven days a week.  On the sled eight to nine months, maybe two weeks off training all year.  Aside from the work with the dogs, she ran, cycled and lifted weights to condition herself.  The twelve days of the race involve so little sleep it leads to hallucinations and many hazards in temperatures that can drop to 50 below. 

Her dedication to the race paled in comparison to her loyalty to her dogs.  In the 1985 Iditarod, a crazed and dying moose attacked her team, killing two of the dogs and injuring 13 more.  Butcher fended the sow off with her ax and parka until another racer arrived and shot the moose.

Even a race that runs relatively smooth requires the strength to steer a 150-200 pound sled.  Butcher herself weighed less at 135.  And mushers aren't just hanging on for the ride.  They are running and kicking along and must sometimes get off the sled and act as lead dogs, charging through the snow in front of the team.  Actually, strictly speaking, they must always act as lead dogs... a team of sled dogs, to whom tugging is a mania, can pull a car.

On Dec. 2 last year, Butcher was diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia.  She began chemotherapy in Seattle just a few days later, accompanied by her husband, David Monson, and their two young daughters, Tekla and Chisana. 

Over the next eight months, the family shuttled back and forth between the hospital and their place in Homer, Alaska, depending on Susan's health.  Her treatment included a bone marrow transplant on May 16, but she was at the Iditarod in March, supporting teams as she had for years, even after her last race in 1994.

In the last week, reports have come from Homer and also Denali National Park of the Northern Lights.  Aurora borealis can be scientifically explained by geomagnetic activity, and tonight the possibilty of sighting the phenomena is listed as strong. 

However in mythology, the auroras are sometimes considered the realm of the spirits.  Vikings referred to them as dead maidens.  Eskimos say that when the lights change rapidly, the dead are trying to make contact, to speak to the living.  Perhaps attendees of Susan Butcher's memorial are now looking to the sky and watching the dancing lights color the horizon.  Perhaps Chisana has again picked out her mom's star.

Regardless of what lights the sky tonight, or whether one ascribes to more scientific or mythological thought, Susan Butcher's life already speaks a great deal.

No matter how many people criticize (your) passion, no matter if you cannot see the link between how what you are going to do is going to benefit others, I can promise you if you do anything well, it will benefit others.  --Susan Butcher (Dec. 26, 1954 - Aug. 5, 2006)

 

 

---

 

* This references David's Aug. 6 journal entry on theStatus.com, which can be accessed following the "News/Updates" links via Susan's official website.  theStatus.com hosts secure and free web pages so patients and loved ones can connect on the Internet.  Susan and David used theirs as a journal during her illness and opened it up to visitors of susanbutcher.com.

 

Women in history worked to build us a home.  It's our job to own it.

Danica.  Wie.  Many debates in sports are currently revolving around a woman's place in athletics.  A great topic as a whole, but not always with the best focus.

I plan to post on more than one aspect and sport, but my first fandom love takes priority.  Now that I have come to terms with the fact that same man -- whose name I refuse to mention -- knocked Marat Safin out of the last two majors, I can return to discussing tennis without going on a rampage.  (Perhaps I can shake Marat's sugar tree by hinting to my growing admiration for Russia's number three, Dmitry Tursunov, one hell o####ood blogger.  Hilarious...

Wimbledon now singles itself out by being the only Grand Slam that does not offer equal prize money to men and women champions.  The WTA and its female athletes have challenged this discrepancy for years.  The debate became more heated this year and even the home country itself appears to be calling for an update.

In April, French Open organizers created additional pressure on the All England Club by raising the Roland Garros women's singles championship purse to match the men's winnings.*

To understate things, this business steamed me up a bit at first.  I was ready to denounce the All England Club to the Dark Ages... 

The focus and headlines on this topic in major media have been mostly financial.  This fight for equal pay is important!  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, women earned an average of 77 cents to each $1 men earned in 2004.

But this tennis debate is not just about the money!  To make that the main or only issue is too simplistic.  I want to see the women take on Wimbly's measure for equality.

Part of Wimbledon's stance -- which has its logic and at least a facade of fairness -- is that the men usually put more time on court per match.  Men's matches are best of five, women play best of three.

Physiologically, women are different from men.  (Call me mistress of the obvious.)  And aren't we all appreciative of that!  Still... despite an emphasis on isolated strength and speed in mainstream American sports, men do not have all the athletic advantages.  In general, women have greater range of motion, muscle endurance, resilience to fatigue and pain tolerance.  (Just ask your mama.)

Tennis is a multi-dimensional sport, a combination of those various physical skills.  But there should be no question of endurance; we already know the women are capable of playing the same duration as the men currently do.

Back in 1892, New Yorker Elisabeth Moore and Mabel Cahill of Ireland played the first women's five-set match ever.  Moore lost that U.S. title match, but earned it in 1901 by winning two five-set matches in successive days: 4-6, 1-6, 9-7, 9-7, 6-3 and 6-4, 3-6, 7-5, 2-6, 6-2.

According to Moore's International Tennis Hall of Fame bio:

     The 105 games alarmed the men who ran the USTA.  They decreed best-of-three-set finals thereafter.  Moore and the other women hadn't complained about five-set matches  and said they felt "dissatisfied" by the decision and patronized by the male establishment.

The men were alarmed?!  Ooooo.... What a bunch of cupcakes.

Moore played 105 games in two days, 105 years ago.

Where are we today?

From 1984-1998, the year-end WTA Tour Championships were best of five sets.  And many of the elite women log time playing deep into singles and doubles draws in Slams.

The latter is actually part of Wimbledon's argument.  The opportunity to stay fresh enough to compete in multiple draws, they say, gives women more of a chance for total tournament earnings.

"The issue is one of a judgment on fairness,"  All England Club chairman Tim Phillips said, according to the Associated Press.  "We believe that what we do at the moment is actually fair to the men as well as to the women."

I am willing to fight for equality for both men and women.  (A seeming redundancy, but I mean that I will get scrappy in favor of the men as well.)  I can't pretend to know the true motivations of the people behind the financial decisions.  But what they say makes sense.  If the women offer to play best of five, we can see whether Wimbledon is giving lip service or not.

This is far from being just a Marat and Venus issue.  Proponents for and against  equal pay use player popularity and match revenue as their reasoning, each to their advantage.  This emphasis saddens me; as I have stated before, it is not what I want sports to be about.  Nor do I want those things to determine the direction of tennis.

But I am pragmatic enough to know it already has a role.  However, the income of a tennis player is not a simple, clear-on-paper thing.  Incentives and endorsements are affected by decisions made in tournaments.  I don't understand it all myself, but I don't care for some of what I know.  (Read as: In part, Maria Sharapova being the highest paid female athlete.)

And there is always luck of the draw...

Playing time is clearly something worth fighting for, but the solution there is not so easy.

Even those who focus this debate on equal playing expectations are divided over whether best of three sets or five is better for the sport.  Some feel five is too drawn out.  Three leaving too much to luck.  A possible solution is best of three in the early rounds, best of five in the quarters and beyond.  Equal for both men and women.

To actually put this idea into practice would be quite a challenge that goes beyond one tournament, or even the four Slams.  Elite players struggle with injuries and tournament draws weaken because of the long season already and players have been calling for change.**

Women's tennis is somewhat of a model.  The sport as a whole already does a lot of things right.  People are watching the game alongside the men's.  And I'd like to think it's not all about the cleavage.  (The attire debate is another statement from Wimbledon that I feel was misrepresented in the media.)

But over a century ago, women felt patronized by the insistence that they play less of a match than a man would.  I am flummoxed that this has not been consistently lobbied since then. 

The joy and opportunity to play is a gift some hard-working women, such as Elisabeth Moore, have given us.  Athletics offers opportunities for personal growth, and these days, possibly a chance to make a career with sport as the sole source of income.  But personally, I would pursue the passion of doing something one loves over money.

I have mostly played co-ed or sports that have a male team counterpart.  And for the most part, I was not asked to do less than a man would and I felt respected as an equal.  Some differences in various sports can be understood.  But time in the game is not one of them.

As more women participate in sports, the gender gap in athletic performance narrows.  Some studies support theories that women will equal or surpass men in endurance sports.  In some sports, there is already evidence of this.

Tennis has long been at the forefront of calling for gender equality in sport and raising awareness of women's issues.  Kudos to those women who have made history and those those who continue to make their voices heard.

Currently, the women of tennis have quite a platform and influence on the media, as well as a strong showing of both female and male fans.  This cannot be said for all women's sports.

And the tennis community is always on alert and debating possible changes to make tennis better -- more interesting and challenging.  Some ideas revolve around emphasizing human performance and less technology.

Making the change in a sport that looks to adapt seems like a good match.  (No pun intended.)

For me to just rant about Wimbledon and cry, "Pay them what they deserve already!" feels like a platitude.  I'd rather see this issue stay on the table, because of all the intricacies that are tied to it.  Many good things can come from hashing this out.  In tennis, in the larger arena of women's athletics and even in gender relations.  Finding a solution that balances all these things to the good would take quite a think tank.  But it would be worth it.

My always ready answer on how to fix tennis?  More Marat.

But that's just my flippant response.  I am a fan of both the men's and women's game.  Would I give up some early round Safin to see Petrova punish Sharapova in four?  Or Kimmie slug it out with Amelie in a five-set final?

You bet!

And my response had nothing to do with the fact that best two out of three would have put Safin into the third round of Wimbly this year, or that I would be just as happy watching his off-court antics.  

Things missing in much of women's sports overall are consistency, carrying momentum, a passing of the torch and knowledge of our history.  (A theme I intend to return to.)  It seems the our "breakthroughs" are often repeat breakthroughs.  That the groundwork was laid but not enhanced, and in some cases not even maintained.  How many pioneers do we need to accomplish the same thing?

Tennis has had a consistent and fascinating female presence.  But I wonder where things would be today if women had been playing five sets all along.  Would things already be financially equal?  Would there have been other breakthroughs?  The financial aspect should be pursued, but my voice would also echo Elisabeth Moore's.  To have the women play less than the men is disrespectful.

Own that court, ladies, and your time there.  I can take it... My mom didn't raise a cupcake.

 

---

 

* This update in French Open policy only affects the women's champion.  Justine Henin-Hardenne's check matched Rafael Nadal's.  The other female players still received less than their male counterparts.

** To have the women play more, without give somewhere else, would only exacerbate the problem of overuse injuries.  If the sacrifice was withdrawal from doubles and mixed doubles that would possibly be a mistake.  Doubles has its own appeal and rightful place.  And players who include those matches gain skills for their singles games.  Again, a multi-layered issue.

On the other hand, to have the men play less may benefit.  Some of the top players met recently with the ATP to discuss scheduling and lessening their required commitments set for the season.  Changes are expected in 2008.

The changes may include the reduction of status or even elimination of some tournaments.  Again, because of money, somebody is not going to be happy and negotiating this will be difficult.  But it is probably the best solution in the interest of the players and their health.

The women already moved the Fed Cup final to give themselves a longer time off to recover as recommended between seasons.

The sport is not stagnant.  The continued debate is healthy.