Evgeny Morozov Tweeted the other day that:

True story: Harvard’s library subscribes to “Journal of the Philosophy of Sport” but not to “Journal of the Philosophy of History”

The author of “The Net Delusion” is embarking on a Ph.D. in Harvard’s lauded history of science program, so this must have been an odd discovery. But not nearly as odd as what he included his next Tweet, a link to an abstract of a paper published in a sociological journal:

‘Dressage Is Full of Queens!’ Masculinity, Sexuality and Equestrian Sport”

The author is Leeds Metropolitan University professor Katherine Dashper, and here’s her forever obsession:

“Attitudes towards sexuality are changing and levels of cultural homophobia decreasing, yet there remain very few openly gay men within sport. As a proving ground for heteromasculinity, sport has traditionally been a hostile environment for gay men. This article is based on an ethnographic study within a sporting subworld in which gay men do appear to be accepted: equestrian sport. Drawing on inclusive masculinity theory, equestrian sport is shown to offer an unusually tolerant environment for gay men in which heterosexual men of all ages demonstrate low levels of homophobia. Inclusive masculinity theory is a useful framework for exploring the changing nature of masculinities and this study demonstrates that gay men are becoming increasingly visible and accepted within once unreceptive locales, such as sport and rural communities. However, this more tolerant attitude is purchased at the expense of a subordinated feminine Other, perpetuating the dominance of men within competitive sport.”

Hell, she got her doctorate by completing “an ethnographic study of the subworld of competitive equestrian sport, focusing specifically on gender within a sport in which men and women compete against each other on equal terms.”

Given Morozov’s demolition of gibberish-spouting Internet guru Jeff Jarvis, I’d love to see him take on this kind of nonsense, which is at the core of my “Beyond Title IX.” But this would be no challenge to Morozov, who seems to be amused by Dashper’s verbiage and the ascension of her field, and that’s about it.

I no longer shake my head, especially when even SB Nation gave Dashper some uncritical mention about gender-blending among equestrian riders during the London Olympics.

Yes, SB Nation.

My post yesterday about female athletes and posing nude for magazines prompted Laura Taylor, one of my Twitter followers, to dust off a 12-year-old open letter she sent to USA Today columnist Christine Brennan, the now-defunct SI for Women magazine and Gary Miller, then of ESPN (!).

The essential point in this sharply written missive (and I mean that as a compliment) is this:

“When female athletes sell sex, it can be a step backward for all women in sports. But this is not a new phenomenon, and it is not the root of the problem. That lies in society’s perception that being a beautiful athletic woman is an oxymoron. That is not the athletes’ fault, nor should they be bound by such arcane limitations.”

Boldface emphasis mine. Thank you for saying so long ago what I couldn’t quite articulate the way I wanted in my book “Beyond Title IX” about this subject.

The perception, though, isn’t the larger society but with a small band of sports feminists who lack any of the nuance or sophistication to understand how some of these athletes see themselves.

The scolds are so convinced that expressions of traditional femininity and sexuality are incompatible with their desire to overhaul the male sports culture that they don’t have a proper response when some of the women they claim to represent have different ideas.

Taylor reports that Brennan and the others receiving her letter didn’t respond, which isn’t a surprise. Taylor concludes, again years ago better than I just have, that:

“Those who seek to protect these women from having to submit to these horrible prurient photo shoots instead place them squarely in the sexist box they so loudly decry.”

You would think, given the fanatacism fomented then and now on this topic, that the only acceptable pose for women athletes would be this one.

Outside magazine takes a long look at the world of women’s cycling, but it’s less about the sport and more a curation of wailing about why it doesn’t get the media attention its supporters believe it deserves.

No story along these lines would be complete without the obligatory academic feminist stock quote, in this case from Susan Douglas of the University of Michigan:

“Derek Jeter doesn’t have to pose in Playgirl to increase his visibility. There is a real double standard here where women are still prized first and foremost for their sexuality and how conventionally sexy and beautiful they are.”

The last time I checked, Derek Jeter is a baseball player, so I’m not sure what mentioning him here has do with cycling. Douglas’ complaint was that female cyclist Liz Hatch presumably had no choice but to pose suggestively for the male-oriented Maxim magazine in 2008.

Judging by the photo spread and accompanying video, it doesn’t appear that Hatch minds any of this at all, nor was there was a cultural gun pointed to her head during the process.

As I wrote in my recent book beyond “Beyond Title IX,” the agony aunts who bemoan the  so-called “sexualization” of female athletes are more than out of touch. They completely misunderstand a younger generation of women who revel in the fact that they are women, and who don’t have hangups about displaying traditional notions of femininity, beauty and sexuality.

But The Sisterhood and academics like Douglas, a baby boomer whose specialty is “analyzing media texts,” insist that we’re all being duped by the commercial media when we see the sultry poses of women like Hatch. Douglas’ latest book, “Enlightened Sexism,” claims that, as one endorser put it, women are not really being liberated by their liberation.

Obsessing over issues like this does nothing to raise the visibility of women’s cycling, or to examine it seriously as a sport. Outside writer Scott Rosenfield made some passing references to the business, marketing and promotion of women’s cycling before going off on a cultural tangent, leaving me disappointed for more than the reasons stated above.

As I watch the daily Tour de France coverage — and the breathtaking French scenery that’s the main reason I tune in — he gave me no better understanding of the distaff side of the sport. These women do deserve to have their story told, but he didn’t provide that.