The League

Sally Jenkins
Sports Columnist

Sally Jenkins

A sports columnist for The Washington Post, Sally Jenkins is the author of five books, including the bestseller It's Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life with cyclist Lance Armstrong.

Don't hate on Tebow


I'll spit this out quick, before the armies of feminism try to gag me and strap electrodes to my forehead: Tim Tebow is one of the better things to happen to young women in some time. I realize this stance won't endear me to the "Dwindling Organizations of Ladies in Lockstep," otherwise known as DOLL, but I'll try to pick up the shards of my shattered feminist credentials and go on.

As statements at Super Bowls go, I prefer the idea of Tebow's pro-life ad to, say, Jim McMahon dropping his pants, as the former Chicago Bears quarterback once did in response to a question. We're always harping on athletes to be more responsible and engaged in the issues of their day, and less concerned with just cashing checks. It therefore seems more than a little hypocritical to insist on it only if it means criticizing sneaker companies, and to stifle them when they take a stance that might make us uncomfortable.

I'm pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I've heard in the past week, I'll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the "National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time." For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.

Continue reading...

By Sally Jenkins  |  February 1, 2010; 2:11 PM ET  | Category:  Super Bowl Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Keep belief off the field | Next: Choice = Priority


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Since Tebow does not have the correct human parts to be at risk in birth who cares what he says. Now if his wife were to die in child birth and he would then have his private part summarily cut off I might listen to him.

Posted by: bluetiger | February 1, 2010 5:58 PM

Since Tebow does not have the correct human parts to be at risk in birth who cares what he says.
Posted by: bluetiger | February 1, 2010 5:58 PM
Blue Tiger cares, lol.

Posted by: ZZim | February 1, 2010 6:08 PM

It takes more than body parts to put a person at risk of pregnancy. Tim says he is saving himself for marriage. I hope that it the case, and if it is then he can say way he is saying without being a hypocrite. I am 100% pro life when both parties are consenting, with that caveat I make the following statement: If those with the body parts that are at risk of becoming pregnant acted the way Tim acts then they would have the same risk Tim has of becoming pregnant.

Posted by: InControl | February 1, 2010 8:36 PM

The dude is a freakin' football player. Who on earth cares what he thinks, or, more likely, is told to think by forces of evil?

Posted by: SydneyP | February 1, 2010 9:52 PM

Sally - since when is insulting feminists anything but counterproductive? My, my, one would think you were putting on a show for all the other dudes in your profession to admire. No doubt being a minority makes you strive daily to be just one of the guys. Talk about group-think!

Tim Tebow is a showboater. Who the hell needs to paint bible verses on their face? What is the point? Why such a need to ensure that everybody who looks at his mug knows what a bible-totin', God-fearin' Believer he is? Something is wrong there.

I have said it before and I'll say it again: no uterus, no opinion. Until you have that cluster of cells growing within you, you cannot possibly know what it means to be responsible for deciding whether or not to bring a new life into this world.

Posted by: FactChecker1 | February 1, 2010 9:58 PM

This is the high water mark for Tebow. I agree with the showboating comment, he is likely a thirdish round pick who more than likely will have an undistinguished NFL Career.

I believe that he is using this to call attention to himself and his father's fundamentalist ministry - I don't like it anymore than I would like a liberal projected 2nd/3rd pick running back make a pro-choice or pro Obama ad for the Superbowl and I think it would be fair to examine his motives for doing such a thing. - which Sally seems to be saying she is fine with.

Religion & Politics should not be discussed at a fancy dinner table or at the Superbowl

Posted by: juno77275 | February 1, 2010 10:41 PM

The most succinct way to sum up Sally Jenkins' naivete on this story is the last paragraph in her piece:

"Tebow's ad, by the way, never mentions abortion; like the player himself, it's apparently soft-spoken. It simply has the theme "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life."

She actually believes there is no agenda involved, and that CBS isn't blatantly violating its own policy and playing favorites. I don't know whether to find that pitiful or disingenuous. Either way, it's not admirable journalism to be this gullible.

Posted by: B2O2 | February 1, 2010 10:48 PM

Okay, Sally - you've kind of missed the point.

My household, including a bezerk-rabid football fan, will be boycotting the Superbowl entirely. It doesn't matter what the content of the Tebow anti-abortion ad is, it's the fact that some politically motivated group is infiltrating what used to be one of the few times that everyone could get together to watch a major sporting event and get away from the politics, arguing and proselytizing that inundates our daily lives and have a good time. I don't WANT to see someone pushing their politics and their morality in my face during a sporting event. I would feel exactly the same way if it were any politically-charged ad, whether it was pro-abortion, gay rights or whatever. Keep your politics out of our sports.

I don't blame Tebow or the group he's representing. They have every right to speak out and even buy ad space to advertise their views. But the Super Bowl is not the forum for this argument. I blame CBS and the NFL for allowing a political ad to make it into what used to be a rather sacrosanct lineup of cola-wars, cars, Doritos and the Bud Bowl. THIS is what football fans expect during the National Holy Day of Gridiron.

If CBS and the NFL don't pull the ad, my eyes will be giving my eyeball business to a different network. Period.

Posted by: jtomalley | February 1, 2010 11:27 PM

Well Sally, you hit the nail on the head when you said that feminists will try to gag you. Just look at FactChecker1's post, there's absolutely nothing objective about the post and it proves absolutely everything you had predicted it would.

Your article is well-written and makes an excellent point about athletes taking a more socially responsible to communities at large. I applaud your article, and I applaud your courage to stand up to the very predictable feminist army.

Posted by: cleo11 | February 2, 2010 1:25 AM

I see that my earlier comment thanking Ms. Jenkins for her article has been removed. So, I will try again. Good article Ms. Jenkins. Thank you.

Posted by: | February 2, 2010 8:19 AM

Well said Sally. I agree.

JTOMALLEY - No football fan would decide not to watch the game because of one ad. When it comes on, all you have to do is change the channel. Calm down. And it's not a political ad. There's no politics involved, from what I've heard. All it says is that "choosing life" is a good thing. Is it not?

Posted by: Eric12345 | February 2, 2010 9:55 AM

And Factchecker...she's not insulting feminists. She's criticizing "women's groups" that purport to speak for all women, when they don't.

Posted by: Eric12345 | February 2, 2010 9:57 AM

Excellent column without hypocracy. Made me think.

Posted by: isguy | February 2, 2010 12:36 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company