Yes, Yes. We know. But can you look good while doing it?
Traditional gender roles often seem at odds with women in athletics. Are they an athlete or a female? Can they be both? Can they be mothers and wives and take care of families while finding the hours in the day to train, travel, and compete (in any sport) at the highest level?
Those questions all arise in women’s athletics when one topic is brought up: femininity. Why do so many female athletes sacrifice their femininity despite now, more than ever, the ability to have both feminine attributes AND exceptional athletic skill?
The sacrifice seems to occur more-so with those who play team sports; is it for the sake of their respective sports? Is that supposed to show dedication to a team instead of focus on themselves as individuals? Is it a chosen preference so they are considered a “serious” athlete instead of just another attractive person playing a sport?
This debate isn’t new.
“Perhaps the most deep-seated is the fear that women’s athletics might erode traditional femininity. The global sports world registered this concern at least three decades before the institution of sex testing and long before the Renee Richards case.
In the early 1930s, when Mildred “Babe” Didrikson, the greatest woman athlete of modern times, set world records in the woman’s 80-meter hurdles and javelin throw, reporters continually remarked on her masculine appearance, and the press focused on the Olympic medalist in a campaign to restore femininity to athletics.
The Babe.
The controversy finally ended when Didrikson married, started wearing dresses, and turned from competing in track, basketball, baseball, football, and boxing, to setting records in the more acceptably feminine world of golf.
How much has changed since the perceptions in the 1930′s? We want our female athletes to be feminine, but is it for the wrong reasons: to make men comfortable with females in sport instead of for females to be able to be comfortable as themselves and play a sport?
Sepp Blatter’s ridiculous comments about wanting women to play soccer in shorter, tighter shorts has potential for good in the women’s game. In all reality, changing that aspect of their uniform would be entirely impractical. But theoretically, it has potential on two fronts: (1) yes, it would help to increase popularity among (male) fans and (2) it could help to remind female athletes that they are, first and foremost, females. That reminder would carry with them on & off the pitch and dictate other behaviors in their lives. The points raised merit consideration (even if it is only at the bar) and come with an odd assortment of pro’s and con’s too numerous to name here.
I’d like to think many female athletes DO still revel in their femininity, but as fans we rarely get to see it. Despite all the paparazzi around male athletes, females are fortunate to avoid much of that focus. Until now, of course.
Thanks to the recent “successes” of the USWNT, their players are household names and now we can expect (at least for a little while longer) to continue to see them in the media. Such is the case with Alex Morgan and Hope Solo, who were snapped attending the final season premiere of Entourage.
Congratulations are in order for these two athletes on taking the public opportunity to showcase the softer side of female athletics. Both very beautiful ladies, they wore dresses, showed some skin, and let their hair down (literally and proverbially).
Here’s the quandary: yes, they’re athletes. Yes, they’re women. BUT, is there any reason they shouldn’t look as good as they play? It can’t be said Alex & Hope don’t have “style” – everyone has a style, be it good or bad – but these USWNT players have the opportunity to be the type of role model young female athletes have never had: attractive, athletic, successful, feminine ones.
Female athletes work ridiculously hard for their sports and one of the many benefits is that they have AMAZING bodies to show for it. Then why are said female athletes reluctant to show off their bodies? Does that undermine their credibility during competition? Those positive physical features: health, fitness, athleticism, are more important than ever to showcase to America’s youth. With the staggering obesity rates in this country, these USWNT players are showing America’s youth that they can be both successful and attractive. If there’s no longer a need to downplay their femininity in modern sport, then why not establish athletes can be fashionable too?
In the photo to the right, sure, both ladies are showing some shoulder – but what else? Alex Morgan’s dress, although a little frumpy, is the right length and helps to elongate her figure. It doesn’t help accentuate an already-small bust, but it does highlight her small waist. The print is youthful, random, clean and funky. I’d give her an A-.
Their 'grades' average a B.
Hope, on the other hand, is looking a little more hopeless. It looks like she tie-dyed her bed sheet, cut a hole in the top, draped it around herself then cinched in the bust with her favorite western belt. The dress is too short and her toenails are blue. It’s a C+, at best.
What happened? To THIS BODY? That photo is beyond hot and goes to show what ‘assets’ Hope has to work with. Why not show it off? One explanation could be their recent schedule (as noted here): they’ve been up for 48 hours doing interviews and have had little sleep. So, one could try and write off these shapeless long dresses to the fact they, in all probability, haven’t had a chance to shave their legs in days (nor have they cared to)?
If we gave them every benefit of the doubt, and even assumed they didn’t have time to shop for clothes for that premiere, then what’s Hope’s fashion excuse on Letterman? Another long, shapeless dress and the same bad shoes as the Entourage premiere. Why wear heels if you’re not going to show off your legs? THAT’S WHAT HEELS ARE FOR (for those of you that’ don’t know, high heels tend to give the aesthetic illusion of longer, more slender legs). I’ll admit, those dresses may be comfortable, but at this time (most likely the apex of the public’s fascination with these women), is that how Hope Solo wants to be remembered? The hot, talented, athletic girl who wears mumu’s? I think not.
Speaking of, that Letterman clip also features Abby Wambach. I’ll take a moment to note that although her fashion sense isn’t necessarily feminine, she does have her own style. It’s one that the masses could attribute to a “typical female athlete” or possibly a certain personal preference in her private life…but it works for her. Abby doesn’t have the lean, delicate frame Morgan or even Mitts does and I admit she’d have more issues finding soft, feminine clothing that flatters her square frame. So I will exclude her from this fashion scrutiny.
Looking through these photos of the “Hotties of the USWNT” – sure some look “cute” in their kits, but I don’t find any more attractive in that Sports Illustrated sportswear shoot than in their everyday street clothes. These are attractive women who really don’t take the opportunities to showcase their natural beauty. Why? America (and the world) are watching.
Could a study be commissioned to find out that women who are less interested in fashion are more likely to be involved with athletics? Could it be that female athletes de-prioritize themselves (especially when performing in team scenarios) to the point where they don’t care what they wear or how they look? Be it from fatigue or nonchalance, from focus on their sport or their fitness – these (and many other) female athletes don’t give their appearance the attention it deserves.
Athletes, like Hollywood starlets, are given lots of the items they wear. Be it from personal sponsors, team sponsors, industry R&D people… the list goes on. But when they step off the pitch, field, diamond, or court each has an opportunity to remind everyone that as athletes – they can still look and entice like women (if outfitted accordingly). Marta, bless her, tried gallantly at the 2009 and 2010 FIFA Women’s World Footballer of the Year award. Sure, she failed (white dress + black tights never equals anything good), but the point is that she, who embodies the “male” skill and sports talent in women’s soccer right now (and who isn’t overly feminine in everyday life or on the pitch) certainly made an effort to represent a female footballer. Kudos for that.
Any woman can tell you, you don’t need money to dress well. But with Solo being one of the highest paid players in the WPS, if she doesn’t have time to shop, she can afford a stylist to do it for her (warning: shameless plug for favorite stylist). Life is too short to look ridiculous all the time.
Men, if you’ve read this far, I applaud you. I also urge you to empower yourselves to not let your WAG (whether she is an athlete or not) go out in public looking ridiculous. There are nice ways to suggest she wear something different (example: “You look great in green, it really brings out your eyes. Would you wear that green shirt I like today?” instead of “Your ass looks huge in that brown dress.“). Think about them and use them. She will (eventually) thank you for it.
If your WAG loves to shop but you don’t (or, better yet, if she hates to shop), consider giving her the ultimate (proverbial) leg-up in life: book her with a stylist for a day. They will help guide her to a style that suits her personality, her curves, and her lifestyle. She will look good for you, and it’s a win/win for everyone.
I will be calling one for Hope this afternoon. With the eyes of American’s women, young and old, on her, this is one chance for a female athlete to prove that just because you’re a successful female athlete by day doesn’t mean you need to look like one at night.
This is actually a very interesting debate. and one i’ve had with some friends already.
from a macro point of view, the majority of the audience that watches sports are us guys. So what’s best for the sport in terms of popularity may not be best for the sport in terms of quality. Which of the two gets young girls to try to emulate their role models is another debate (one on the female brain). This is not a problem in male sports. Kids want to be like Messi as much as they want to be like Crapoldo
For female sports though, there are three classes of female athletes.
1. Hot ones where it doesn’t matter how good they are at the sport. anybody remember how well that pole vaulter (or javelin thrower?) did in the olympics? no. but you remember her and you remember her sport involved some sort of giant pole.
2. Attractive athletes who are great yet you wouldn’t want to sleep with because you fear they could crush you. Like hope, like kornikova, etc etc.
3. The non-attractive ones who need to be really good in order for us guys to pay attention. This is probably where most of the talent lies but where fewer of the popularity contest winners will be.
.
So if you want the sport to advance in terms of quality, you pull from groups 2 and 3, but if you want it to grow in popularity, you pull from groups 1 and 2
such is the condition of the male brain
@clem – well said. For some reason I needed 1,700 words to do so. (-;
.
It sounds crass because in theory, the third type is the one that “should” be promoted (so there’s no pressure to be a certain physical type – just have athletic talent), but the grey area lies therein. If you have athletic talent, even if you aren’t overly pretty, there’s no reason you can’t still want to accentuate your positive features. If not for your own self esteem or as a role model, do it for your gender. Show women can have it all: powerful, attractive, athletic, accomplished, etc.
.
For so long, women had to choose between being moms or having a career. That glass ceiling was broken in the workplace, but it’s still hard to comprehend in athletics. There’s an FRS commercial with Cristie Rampone about her loving the sport, then loving her kids. The whole thing seems so odd… like what? they have kids too?
.
The ’99 squad, although some were physically attractive, didn’t even come close to tapping into their femininity like Morgan and Hope do. The ’99 squad (Hamm, Chastain) were attractive – but it was always big shirts, bad hair, no makeup, blah blah blah. They still wanted to be wallflowers when the eyes of the world (and the country) were upon them.
.
Why? Has no one ever told a female athlete: “If you’ve got it, flaunt it.”
I always wonder how playing up your perceived attractiveness/beauty plays with other players on the team. Does it invite jealousy and whisper campaigns against that woman? Particularly if she is not one of the best players on the team. How does that affect team dynamic. In individual sports like tennis and golf, the issue would not be so problematic because it would just be opponents talking about you and not your teammates that you entrust yourself and the team with.
@TFA – if it’s not the envy (of an individual on a team) having endorsements (specifically for her looks), then it could just be a distraction. I’d like to think teammates can look past it, but maybe women are that caddy. I mean, Rooney still got attention when CRon was on the team, despite CRon’s looks.
.
As I mentioned, individual sports aren’t as big an issue because those are still considered “women’s” sports. They have no contact and therefore don’t have the same sort of fitness requirements, etc. It’s less threatening to both men and women to have a nice, soft, athletic female than those that are more-aggressive and participate in team sports with contact (soccer & basketball mainly). (Volleyball, although a team sport, has no contact – with people or the ground – so they can wear Sepp’s short shorts without worry).
Wag – Are you indirectly suggesting more female athletes pose nekkid?
I do not oppose this at all but fear most feminists will
TFA – are you one of those guys who plays while sporting gelled hair
Abby Wambach is a man. I thoroughly enjoyed impersonating her with an exaggerated man’s deep voice during the final.
So long as men are in a position to maximize the visibility of women in sport, the “sexy” will always outweigh the “ability”. At least that’s what I think I’m supposed to say.
-
What about Serena Williams? She embraced both her athletic prowess and her body. She dominated on the court, and she wasn’t afraid to show her body off the court. She was a 1 + 2, as clemantona would phrase it.
@clem: no.
@clem – they don’t have to post naked. That confuses men with their sexual and sport desires too much. They just shouldn’t be afraid to be an athlete AND a feminine woman. I’ll never understand why they ever thought they could only be one or the other.
@Lucius – Click on the Renee Richards link. Interesting then. Would it happen now? Crazy to think so?
.
@MMDR – yes, that’s what men say. Because no matter how good a woman is at something, if she doesn’t have some “assets” to showcase, there’s no marketing value to her.
.
Serena & her sister had a different card they got to play in addition to looks (‘junk in the trunk’ does do it for some guys)- and that would be a race card in a sport predominately dominated by white people. Like it or not, that was ground-breaking on it’s own merit. (Arthur Ashe had his time, they have theirs).
@Wag: I honestly have no idea whether you’re trying to stir up shit or if you really believe this, especially in light of your treatise on short hair last week. Don’t get me wrong, I like looking at pretty ladies (all different kinds) as much as the next guy but haven’t (or shouldn’t we have) progressed to the point that conforming to gender stereotypes isn’t required of female (or male, for that matter) athletes? Who gives a shit if the sexy ones aren’t flaunting their sexuality in a supposedly accepted manner? Conversely, who gives a shit if they are? My point is, if that’s what they want to do, fine–feminism is all about opening up choices. Sure female athletes can have be athletic and sexy, have kids, stand by their man, etc., etc. but they can also not do any of that other bullshit and not be denigrated for it. That being said, I’d sop Alex Morgan up with a biscuit.
@ WAG: Maria Sharapova. No race card, Grand Slam winner, the anti-Kournikova perhaps? Seems tennis might have more of the type of female athlete that matches femininity with high levels of sporting achievement. It also has its not Beauty Queen winners we still appreciate, like Billie Jean & Martina but the ‘tweeners like Steffi Graf.
@Goat – I’ll let you ponder whether I’m joking or not, but I’ll give you this:
.
Choices, indeed. It’s why I wouldn’t suggest Abby be anything other than what she is. My point started superficially (about Hope’s ugly dress)about athlete fashion and it evolved through the sports and gender about where it stands now. They can be who they are, stereo-type or not, but shouldn’t they dress well while doing it?
.
Compare CRon’s success and Messi’s. Even if their skill was comparable on-pitch, if Messi cut that mullet, took a little pride in his personal appearance (“manly” or not), more doors would open to expose his brand and his sport to a global audience (not to mention make more money). Why WOULDN’T an athlete want to capitalize financially if they could? They all know their playing time (in any sport) is limited at a professional level. Retiring at 36 doesn’t sound bad if you have something to live on for the rest of your life (Oh, and someone to eat biscuits off of).
The key question, though, is: are these buttermilk biscuits?
@Wag: Maybe Solo’s ugly dress is what she is.
@OM – Tennis isn’t a particularly masculine sport. Women wear short skirts (why can’t they wear shorts? hmm?), have no physical contact, etc. The pretty ones get the endorsements and the homely, talented ones are appreciated (Martina, Graf, etc.) – like any sport.
.
The question is, what if Graf was portrayed like this (http://bit.ly/pTZNRU) more often than this (http://bit.ly/mTEmGu). Would we see and appreciate her differently? Would she have made more money? Garnered more attention for the sport?
.
I don’t know. Just questions…
@OM: Is there any other kind?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jvVCJp429A
@ Goat: I just wanted to make sure we weren’t talking about hard-tack. Mmm, biscuits…
@Goat – true. But, as any good beauty queen would say, I believe in inner beauty. It’s in all of us. Some people just need someone with expertise to help show them the light.
.
In that specific case, you never see her in pictures dressed up (seriously. try your google fu). So, I think she just needs help.
.
Ironically, she’s helping OTHER women improve their legs and bodies. Can’t sell yourself as a fitness guru if no one can see what ammo you are packing, sister. http://bit.ly/q2ElyB
There’s also this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8EKdAgInrE
@ WAG: I think both men & women in tennis had to wear the long pants, but rules loosened up over the years to allow for shorts, skirts, and even non-white apparel in non-Wimby events. I believe in some tournaments they wear skorts, which would be jorts slightly classier cousin.
@OM – I’m familiar with the skort, but since there’s still an element of a skirt to it, call a spade a spade. Even when they wear full-on skirts, they have those large tennis undies that hold their balls. HEY NOW! Are we getting to the root of this matter? It makes the tennis powers that be uncomfortable that women have large balls in their pants and therefore require skirts to be worn? hm. yeah, I don’t think that’s it either…
@ WAG: You just reminded me of images of Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario with pleated skirts and that ball holder she would hide under it. Not a welcome image.
Gabriela Sabatini, on the other hand…
@ berg: + 1
Maybe some women don’t want to be valued by their physical beauty. That’s their prerogative. I don’t think having women comform to an ideal of beauty or sexy is a way to further their sport nor does it really help women athletes except by giving them body image issues not only from actresses and singers but also athletes. But of course I’m on my phone so I didn’t read through everything, so my opinion has probably already been voiced and shot down with great wit and slight vitriol. Point is, has women’s tennis really grown? They showed it before sexy ladies and they show it now, same with other women’s sports. We shouldn’t worry about men consuming women’s sports more so than women consuming it, as it reflects themselves rather than men.
@Arkie – your point is valid, but it’s not just about women (or men) consuming women’s sports. The point (which I eventually got to), was that women didn’t have to sacrifice a feminine ideal just to be an athlete. Tennis is a bad example in sport growth. It’s probably hard for men to understand because when they are learning to be athletes, they are never taught to be anything they already aren’t (except possibly “tougher”). Women, on the other hand, have to be tough physically & mentally, turn off their emotions, don’t care about your hair or nails, don’t worry about pain — all seemingly small but still valid points they had previously been taught to be concerned with. Henceforth, they are unconsciously trained to give up their femininity while they are training to be an athlete. No where does anyone (leagues, parents, coaches, society, etc.) make an effort to KEEP those qualities in young women WHILE teaching them the others are important DURING athletics. It’s always been a one-or-the-other scenario. And that, dear sir, is where my amalgamation of an argument lies. They can have both – but it needs to be a conscious choice, not some slipping away of female qualities overtime at athletic practice…
@Wag: But wouldn’t all women be better off if they weren’t expected to have to do that shit? Doing your hair and nails aren’t inherently feminine characteristics, just expectations that society has foisted upon them. Femininity is socially defined in certain ways, that evolve and change over time, but generally those definitions of supposedly inherent feminine qualities serve to constrain women. I’m also not so sure about your point that female athletes have been trained to give up their femininity (if we define that as following fashion trends, wearing makeup, etc.). If anything it’s just the opposite (think that scene in A League of Their Own where the women are given pointers on makeup and fashion and are expected to appear a certain way out in public). It’s the same with female athletes posing nude–there’s a need to show that despite being athletes they can still embody the ideal of femininity and sexiness that’s women are expected to live up to. I think this is changing somewhat and I think we should applaud that change.
I think the whole point is that if you are going to be in the public eye, try to look stylish. It can’t hurt and will likely increase their income.
@TFA – yes. for the woman’s own good (i.e. her income which is her financial independence where she can tell society to suck it and keep sucking it. Poor athletes don’t get to do that b/c they have to keep milking the tit as long as they can then instead of letting themselves go, they have to work on Fox Soccer Channel). Don’t make anyone do that!
@Goat – A league of their own happened how long ago? Was that the 40′s? During the war, right? Men were worried their women were becoming men while they were away at war. Hair/nails were a bad example in that light, but there are no current teams (to my knowledge, or the media’s) that still make women sit around and learn etiquette and how do dress/look/etc.. I don’t think they need to as a team, I think women should be inspired to WANT to do that themselves. Not for society, but for themselves.
it’s great to see strong, intelligent women representing female sports!