The
1990s and beyond are years that sport consumer culture calls the post Title-IX
demographic. Title IX protects people from discrimination based on sex in
education programs and activities that utilize government funding. If you would like to learn more about Title-IX I provided the link above. Ultimately
Title IX created a new demographic: a consumer culture that was entirely made
up by women who wanted to go above and beyond gender stereotypes and limitations.
Advertisers tapped this demographic by channeling sports and integrating
athletic women into their promotional culture. Female athletes however are not
depicted the same way that male athletes are; they are often hyper-sexualized
and effeminized. However, just because these iconic females are often seen
wearing a swimsuit rather than playing a sport, it does not mean that this
method of advertising is inherently bad for feminism. I believe that marketing
the female athlete in a sexual manner appeals to both male and female audience.
Her (the iconic female athlete’s) naked body to me does not say, “Take me
because I am weak”, it says, “look at me because I am strong”.
In
order to avoid appearing masculine, female athletes are often subjected to
methods of advertisement that emphasize femininity. Lately that means the
representation of female athletes in poses that could be labeled as
pornographic. This “babe factor” not only calls attention to their sexuality,
it calls attention to their heterosexuality. To me it seems that iconic female
athletes often run the risk of appearing “dyke-ish”; for example attention can
be called to the plethora of female athletes that often pose nude for articles
in Sports Illustrated. The women in the picture below are all famous
professional athletes and yet they are depicted in nothing but PAINTED ON swim
suits. I do not know about you, but Alex Morgan in this picture doesn’t really
look like she plays soccer for the US National Team.
The picture is definitely sexualized, but is it overtly
wrong? Studies discussed in Built to Win by
Heywood and Dworkin revealed that images of female athletes, when shown to
fifth through tenth graders, inspired conversation that both, “reinforced and
challenged traditional gender ideals.” (Heywood and Dworkin, 19) The authors
suggest that, “perhaps it is now more possible for young boys to fantasize
about the potential physical protection of women. Perhaps they can expect women
to fight back by day on the school grounds, at frat parties, and at the dinner
table someday.” (Heywood and Dworkin, 19) More studies reveal new common
opinion is that athletic bodies are now perceived as more attractive than
anorexic bodies. “Suddenly the athletic body has become an ideal for both
sexes, problematizing traditional gender codes in the popular imagination.”
(Heywood and Dworkin, 81) It seems to me that Americans are starting to respect
and admire female strength, which is a big step away from the frail and
powerless woman that has so defined the gender binary system for hundreds of
years. This is important because if males and females are both considered
attractive when they are strong, where is difference between men and women?
This takes away from the binary, and that seems like a pretty revolutionary
concept. Revealing the naked body of the iconic female athlete to the public is
perhaps not as dis-empowering as some are inclined to think. Her muscular and
fit appearance communicates strength and independence to the viewer. Perhaps it
is through this method of advertising that female athletes are able to slowly
change how men think about women but through a venue that men are unlikely to
protest against.
Built
to Win by Heywood and Dworkin introduces two parties of thought in regards
to the hyper-sexualization of female athletes. They introduce camp one: the
old-school feminists and camp two: the new age feminists. “For camp 1 the position seems to be: the
media is always bad, the product of evil capitalist patriarchy, and its representation
of women is the worst” and camp 2 the position seems to be, “the media is the
air we live and breathe, we manipulate it for our own ends, and aren’t we so
clever and aren’t we hot babes?” (Heywood and Dworkin, 78) Even though sexualizing female athletes in
the media seems to make the baby boomer feminists uneasy, it is my generation,
the “MTV generation”, that has embraced the naked athletic body. To me it seems
that by advertising female athletes as (hetero)sexual, it has allowed them to
be athletes and to gain attention for it. So many of these naked images can
communicate, “power, self-possession, and beauty, NOT sexual access.” (Heywood
and Dworkin, 80)
The
danger zone lies within the individualistic nature of the iconic female. It is
the athlete who acts to further her own personal gain that threatens the nature
of new age feminism, not the nude pictures. If SHE uses her fame and attention
to empower women and give back to the activists who got her to that point, then
she is powerful. However, I believe that if she does not do this then she has
conformed, and it is within conformity that oppression exists. “Real Women” do
not have the same opportunity to instigate social change that the iconic female
has access to. “Iconic female athletes offer a sense of possibility and
belonging to a world where women aren’t always on the sidelines cheering for somebody
else, where they are active agents in the world and people are cheering them.”
(Haywood and Dworkin, 24) This female athlete, if allowed to be, can be a
resource in the “ongoing struggles for social justice.” (Haywood and Dworkin,
24)
I firmly believe that sexualizing
the female athlete means sexualizing power, and when sexualizing power it is made accessible to everyone. “The athletic body, when coded as athletic, can
redeem female sexuality and make it visible as an assertion of female presence,
and make that presence amenable to a range of sexualities” (Haywood and
Dworkin, 83) The strong iconic female cannot and will not be reduced to just “a
piece of ass”. She owns her body and she knows what she is doing when she
stands in front of the camera naked. She is not naïve, rather she is exhibiting
control. She does not allow herself to be purely an object for men to fantasize
over; she becomes an icon for women and men alike to strive to embody.
No comments:
Post a Comment