James LaRosa, coming to Ana Ivanovic's defense (though I don't think she'll need one) regarding her Sports Illustrated photoshoot, doesn't really get it. First, he wants to know why people are attacking these "young girls," all of whom are women, not girls. But more to the point, he brings up Fernando Verdasco's Calvin Klein ad and suggests there is a double standard. Well, there is, but not the way LaRosa thinks. The double standard is that no matter how many times a male pro appears in his Calvins, he is always considered an athlete first. But when a woman does a similar photoshoot, she is considered a hot chick (or, just as frequently, a slut or a whore) first, and an athlete second, if at all. That's the double standard.
Does this mean that female pros should never do photoshoots? No--it means that they should do them with their eyes open to the consequences, and to what the results mean for women and girls. And there is also a world of difference between seeing a female pro in a fashionable outfit or seeing a beautifully shot Serena Williams on the cover of a magazine about athletes in the nude--and seeing a female pro in obviously sexual (and not in the "artistic" sense) poses. There is nothing inherently wrong with sexual poses, of course, but when famous women agree to do them--especially in mainstream contexts--the results, because of our very sexist culture, are disturbing.
11 comments:
I don't even consider Ivanovic tennis player anymore. She is a model playing tennis, and usually loosing...
I totally agree with your point about considering the implications for girls, Diane. Whether this shoot was harmless or not, it DEFINITELY sends a negative message to other aspiring female athletes.
And I'm not sure team Ivanovic understand or acknowledge that.
I just think that the whole thing might start with the way the WTA thinks about their players. They care a lot about "glamour" (their word not mine) off court, women's (not girls) outfits on court, etc. Their website, with one of the main photos, makes a big deal out of Ivanovic being in Sports Illustrated. The WTA sells the women and how the women appear to get tickets.
I honestly don't care what a player does in their off time. For me, Ana will always be the tennis player that won Roland Garros two years ago and I will always think of her that way. Maybe it's easier for me to say since I am a huge fan. But if Ana was winning right now, would people really be making much of a fuss about this? I mean, when her FHM shoot came out after she won Roland Garros the reaction wasn't as harsh.
Curtis, I agree that any attitudes or feelings one may have about Ana's shoot should not be related to whether she is currently winning. In my case--and I think I speak for all feminists--yes, the shoot would be just as upsetting to me if she had just won the Australian Open. Perhaps more so.
Sunny, the tour's attitude toward such things is indeed a big part of the problem. I remember Larry Scott, when he resigned, saying that the tour had a "neutral" attitude about the subject, which was, of course, just one more case of Scott's ongoing hypocrisy about the social and political needs of women. The tour promotes the hell out of the objectification of women's bodies.
It doesn't seem like it has changed much with Stacey Allaster at the helm... Ana's shoot was promoted so heavily on the offical WTA website. Why not conduct more off court interviews or present more features? Why feature a player who is in such a slump, rather than salute the great achievements of some of the other players? The WTA need some serious perspective.
I also remember a discussion in an online mag regarding the male athletes and women athletes on the tour. The author (who I forgot and yes I should remember these things) made the women sound like sluts for going out with several male players and when speaking of the males who dated several women players, used the more neutral word of Don Juan or playboy. Playboy could connote something negative but it is considered way better than slut.
Last year, Tennis Magazine made slut-type references to Hingis, but there is never any negative talk in that magazine about the ATP men who have dated several WTA women. (Tennis Magazine also insulted older people in an issue that was dedicated to older tennis players, and also made thinly veiled homophobic remarks. Evert needs to get a grip on the content of that magazine.)
Tennis magazine made a 'slut' type reference? That's a pretty big call, Diane. Are you sure? I read that publication monthly, and have never come across that. I do recall an article about Hingis being compared to a black widow, i.e the effect she has on the male players she dates. But I have never come across this before. From a female perspective, I am actually on the whole, happy with their content.... although was dismayed recectly when the main article on their website was concerning Brooklyn Decker.
I no longer recall whether it was the "black widow" piece or an earlier one that rubbed me the wrong way; I think it was an earlier one. The implication was that Hingis had been with more men than is "respectable" for a woman.
Tennis Channel's "black widow" piece on Hingis, however, was certainly not benign. They couldn't just stop with the obvious black widow reference, but had to talk about how many men Hingis had "been through." Never any talk about how many women some of the ATP men have "been through," however.
Post a Comment