Masculinity in Connection to Dwight Howard's Issues with Free Throws

Being the sports nut that I am I tend to check on the statuses of athletes in the NFL and the NBA. One article I read was about Dwight Howard and how he can improve his God-awful free throw shooting percentage, which is about 55%, far below the league average of about 72%. While reading the article I found some concepts involving masculinity and why Dwight will not improve his free throw shooting easily.

So, a famous NBA player named Rick Barry is considered one of the greatest small forwards of his era and the greatest free throw shooter of all time. He has the all-time record for free throw percentage, averaging about 90%. The reason he was able to achieve this percentage is because he shot his free throws underhanded, which are more likely to be made than the standard shooting technique. In fact, my grandfather told me that coaches required all players to shoot underhanded free throws before the sixties. That practice has virtually faded away overtime.

In the article, Rick Barry states that he will offer to teach Dwight Howard how to shoot underhanded free throws to raise his percentage, help add a few extra points to his average, and prevent the Hack-A-Howard strategy used against him. Yet, Dwight refuses to learn and apply the underhanded shot because of the modern media might perceive him in lacking masculinity; the same media that personifies masculinity in basketball as dunking, shot blocking, and shooting impossible shots. Howard is not the only horrible free throw shooter to say this. Shaq, who is considered to be the worst free throw shooter of all time, once said in Sports Illustrated that he would rather "shoot a negative percentage before I shot like that (underhanded)." Wilt Chamberlain, another notoriously horrible free throw shooter, said that he felt like a "sissy" when he shot underhanded. 


So immediately I find this dangerous view of masculinity as a detriment to one's production. What is so "sissy" about scoring a few extra points? What's so damn feminine about helping your team make some crucial free throws when the game is on the line? Honestly, Shaq could have probably surpassed Wilt's position on the All-time scoring list if he raised his free throw shooting by shooting underhanded. Wilt might have averaged 55 points per game in the season he averaged 50 if he applied Rick Barry's old time technique. 


Dwight Howard is a rising talent who has the chance to be completely unstoppable offensively if he can learn from Rick Barry's underhanded free throw techniques. Clearly, his current style is not working if he's averaging 55% percent this season. And honestly, what does it matter to Dwight's "manliness" if he's averaging more points and winning more games with underhanded free throw shots?

Angelic Androgyny

Angels, the winged messengers of God, are artistically depicted in numerous ways from the peaceful forgiving angel to the warlike avenging angel. Yet, one concept that developed during the Renaissance is the depiction of angels as androgynous beings.

In the image above is a commonly artistic representation of the Archangel Michael defeating Satan. Unlike other paintings however, Michael's gender is somewhat ambiguous such as his soft facial features  yet masculine torso. Artistic depictions of the gender in angels have come up before such as Paradise Lost. In Paradise Lost Adam laments over the sexual indifferences he shares with the angels because they can have the sexual pleasures of both men and female. He reasons that because Angels are not human to begin with, they are without gender. It is this reasoning that angels are inhuman why artists sometimes do away with the usual masculine features of an angel to that of a sexless being. 

Effeminacy. Too Feminine?

While I was browsing Twitter this morning, I saw a link to an article that claims that there should be a line between those who are effeminate (and male identifying) and homosexual and those who are effeminate and claim to be heterosexual. The article (found here), pictures Bill Kaulitz from the German band Tokio Hotel. Bill is the lead singer, and self-identifies as a heterosexual male. He does, however, have a very soft face, and can often be seen wearing eye makeup, which I've come to realize is a signifier of femininity.

This is Bill. He doesn't, however, wear traditionally feminine clothing. He dresses in jeans and t-shirts, but he chooses to wear his hair long. I fail to see how this makes a person "too feminine to be straight."

Intrigued, I started thinking about the different ways that the media affects what people think of a person's sexuality. For example, Adam Lambert is openly homosexual, but his bass player, Tommy Ratliff (on the right), is heterosexual. During the "Glamnation" tour, there are multiple homoerotic moments between the two, and there are many different kisses throughout the night. Does this make Tommy Ratliff homosexual, or is it a part of the desire for more attention? Maybe it's just fun?

So then, where do we draw the line? At what point does typically homosexual behavior make a heterosexual man seem gay? Who decides?