One Sport Voice

Breaking news, the Lingerie Football League (LFL) has just announced that Minneapolis is being awarded a franchise. I’ve written previously about my disdain for the LFL and why I think the league is problematic (click here and here).

What troubles me is that while the LFL is expanding, REAL women’s professional teams and athletes are struggling. The LFL is adding up to five additional teams–which would bring the league to 15 teams. The WNBA has 10 teams. The WPS has 7 teams. Let me be clear, the LFL is not sport. The LFL is about sex, and selling sex. The target consumer of the LFL is not female sport fans, or serious fans of women’s sport. The LFL target market is the coveted 18-35 year old male fan. The LFL is selling sex, not sport. As I’ve written before, sex sells sex. Sex does not sell women’s sport.

There is one small silver lining this for me. The good news about having an LFL franchise in Mpls is that I can finally do some research around the league–who attends, why do they attend, who tries out and plays in the LFL, what is the motive for playing and attending, what is the fan perception of the league, and so much more! Maybe I’ll submit my suggestion for the MSP team name….that way I can win lifetime season tickets so I can conduct my research with lower cost.

I know I write quite a bit about how female athletes are sexualized in the media, and sport media in particular. Usually my posts are met with the standard “athletic bodies are sexy, get over it you stuffy academic”…but the most recent video of Serena Williams in an ad for the TopSpin 2k video game, is just too blatant to ignore. I’m just not sure how one could argue this is not sexualization and soft core porn, but I’m open to hearing other points of view.

Even if Serena herself at the end of the video says it is “just fantasy”, it doesn’t erase the fact this has very little to do with the fact she is one of the best female tennis players in the world.

In a similar vein, I’d be remiss not to also mention the new promotional ads for the Vancouver Whitecaps, a new Major League Soccer team. One writer actually got it right in saying that yes sex sells, but it is also offensive to many.

I love March Madness, but I do not love this. It isn’t cute or clever, it is just plain irritating and insulting. It makes it seem as if females can’t be serious individuals OR sport fans, or possess knowledge of basketball. If you’d like to fill out real bracket, do so here for the men and here for the women.

If you know the history of sport media coverage of athletes, you know that it is problematic and has limitations. I saw this tweet come through on Sociological Images (@SocImages) The Perfect Body, as Illustrated by Olympic Athletes and wanted to share it.

Serena Williams ESPN Magazine Oct 2009

I love this photography project by Howard Schartz and Beverly Ornstein, as it represents all types of athletic bodies not just the bodies that represent society norms of what it means to be attractive and athletic, different sports, men and women, and doesn’t sexualize or marginalize female athletes.I chose this picture of the eight photos in the project because it includes Olympic weightlifter Cheryl Haworth, whom you NEVER see in covered in the sport media.

While you could critique the photos for not being “in action, on the court, or in uniform” these pictures are a much different representation of athletic bodies than The Body Issue of ESPN The Magazine.

We’re off and running in 2011 and it doesn’t take long for some interesting items to pop up related to sports and gender.

1. A great example that sexism is alive and well lies in the firing of ESPN announcer Ron Franklin after he made a derogatory remark (i.e., “sweet baby”) to sideline reporter Jeannine Edwards in a meeting before the Fiesta Bowl. YEAH ESPN for doing the right thing.

2. The “apples to oranges” comparison between male and females athletes is also alive and well and is being perpetuated by both men and women. This was recently evident in the non-stop comparisons between the UConn vs. UCLA basketball streaks (note: many of my predictions about the coverage of UConn streak were fulfilled), and was taken to a new level by this sports blogger who is also misinformed about the target audience and purpose of espnW (note to said sports blogger: espnW does not just cover women’s sports, it is targeted toward the female sport fan). The problem with comparisons is that women’s sport and female athletes will always come out as “lesser than.” Can’t female athletes be appreciated and not constantly compared to their male colleagues?

Screen shot of New Balance homepage Jan 10, 2011

3. It appears that the trend of featuring naked/nude female athletes in the sport media or to sell a product is all the rage. Examples of this trend can be found in ESPN The Magazine: Body Issue, Sports Illustrated, and the most recent example a colleague sent me (see picture). This is a screen shot of the New Balance homepage. How is this picture related to selling shoes? Does New Balance want to be lumped into the “sex sells” and exploiting females athletes to sell products category? Nude female athletes is a new twist on an old pattern of female athletes being portrayed “out of uniform”...literally. And for those who are going to call me a prude and outdated feminist, go right ahead. It won’t stop me from continuing to point out that portraying female athletes in this manner does NOT honor their athleticism or promote women’s sport, but marginalizes female athletes and possibly perpetuates sexism and the constant comparison I mentioned above. Can you really take a female athlete seriously as an ATHLETE when she is portrayed naked? I would argue this NB ad sells sex, not sport shoes. Disagree as you will, but I challenge you to prove me wrong that proportionately female athletes are not portrayed “out of their uniforms” more often than male athletes.

Happy 2011!

Recently I did an “Ask the Sport Sociologist” segment with Dave Zirin on his Edge of Sports radio show. Dave and I talked about espnW and Brett Favre. To listen to the segment, click here.

As a scholar who examines gender in the context of sport I’m always interested in the ways the media arbitrarily construct gender–meaning the images we see in the media tell “us” what it means to be a girl or boy, and what is appropriately feminine and masculine.

I have a long disdain for the “pink-ifying” of girls and the non-stop Princess narrative which bombards girls from the youngest ages. I’ve followed the blog PinkStinks for awhile and love their content. PinkStinks is a campaign and social enterprise that challenges the ‘culture of pink’ which invades every area of girls’ lives. A friend and colleague recently sent me this picture which depicts the dichotomous nature of how gender is constructed in the media. Her rhetorical question to me was: Why does it have to be “versus’ and not ‘and’? Can’t a girl be both a princess AND and tomboy?

According to Star, Girl Princesses wear bling and like to be pampered, while it is unladylike to be violent, wear clothes associated with boys, and have an interest in dead things. My point here is: Who got to decide these behaviors are appropriate or not for girls? Is this really newsworthy? (I suppose you could argue Star really isn’t news)

What message does this send young girls? We need more Princess Free Zones (PFZ) that allow girls the freedom to express all parts of who they are and want to be without sanction from society, peers, and parents. I would also argue the behaviors for what is means to be a boy should be more inclusive and broadened. Here is a Anti-Princess Reading List.

I would argue sport has the potential to be a great PFZ, but only if coaches and parents allow free expressions of gender and resist using stereotyping language that reinforces outdated gender dichotomies.

I’ve written previously about portrayals of female athletes  in sport media (here & here) and particularly on the pattern of female athletes on the covers of ESPN The Magazine. and Sports Illustrated.

Yesterday a colleague forwarded me the new cover of ESPN The Magazine “the movie issue” as she thought I’d like to see it. On the cover appeared to be a Sharon Stone look alike from the famous interview scene in Basic Instinct. I thought it strange ESPN would have a movie issue, and didn’t really realize it was Olympic medalist Lindsey Vonn until today! At the risk of asking for more criticism and being hung out to dry by those who will disagree when I write about Lindsey Vonn, I have to address (again) why this cover is just plain problematic. To see video of Vonn’s shoot and why she decided to do the piece, click here.

Reason 1: Females athletes are under represented in the media. Less than 5% of all sport media is dedicated to female athletes. A new report states that number is generous as coverage of females athletes on major networks has declined to an all time low of 1.6%!!!

Reason 2: When female athletes are given media coverage it is usually in ways that highlight their sexuality, rather than athletic competence. (latest ESPN cover as Exhibit A, B, C, D,…..). ESPN The Magazine is the worst culprit of this pattern. In five years (2004- March 2009) females athletes have appeared on 5 of 168 ESPN covers (3.6%…less than the average) and when they do….well see for yourself.

I joke in class with my students that whenever female athletes are on the cover of ESPN they are in white (except for Danica Patrick because she is usually always in black for some reason as part of the media’s construction of her as a badass, sexy vixen…even when she’s “refueling” and promoting Got Milk?). White in U.S. culture connotes purity, chastity, cleanliness, and innocence but when coupled with sexy images of female athletes it has a much different meaning I’m still trying to figure out. This pattern is not coincidental and I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.

Reason 3: When female athletes are consistently portrayed like sexy vixens it become increasingly difficult for most everyone to take them seriously AS ATHLETES. This does little to promote women’s sports.

Reason 4: It sends the wrong message to girls and young women, and heck any female!, that it is more important what your body looks like and how it can be used and gazed upon as a sexual object, than what your body can do athletically. An entire body of literature provides many reasons why the continual sexualization of females is harmful to girls.

This ESPN cover and the countless other images are not proof of female enlightenment, it is as Susan J. Douglas argues in her book it is unfortunately an example of how far we have to go until females are free of sexist practices packaged as post feminist empowerment that undermines female achievement and serves to keep women a sexualized objects, rather than promote them as equal members of society.

In the Yeah! column, a video featuring two girls who play on boys’ football teams.

In the Nay column, Mechelle Voepel’s column on the first-ever FIBA conference and the five “key topics” discussed by attendees (including lowering the rim, and regulating uniforms), to which I say quoting Voepel, “You’ve got to be kidding me.”

The second Nay has to do with a basketball coach who wants to “fight the lesbian lifestyle” by creating a team with all heterosexual players. Huh?  Unfortunately, gender stereotypes still haunt women’s sport as this ESPN column outlines.

The third Nay, is the 2010 ESPN The Magazine’s Body Issue cover of Diana Taurasi. This blogger on SheWired summed up my thoughts, “This is not the Diana Taurasi I remember!” I will keep contending that seeing female athletes posed like this (given females only receive 6-8% of all sport media coverage), does nothing positive to promote women’s sports or female athletes. If it does, WNBA season ticket sales should be dramatically increasing as I type.

Thanks to the people that have sent me tidbits, some of which are included here.

Some additional thoughts to add to my previous blog on espnW.

I want to clarify a few points. I stated that I wanted mostly females journalists, bloggers, videographers and those who do content to be female on the espnW website. I did not say only females, I said a majority. Here is why: We lack females in positions of power in all roles in sport. What better way to provide visible role models for girls and other females who aspire to a similar career pathway in sport (whether it be athlete, journalist, coach, subject matter expert, editor, photographer) that to feature them on espnW!  Research indicates girls are desperate for female role models and identify with same-sex role models more effectively (click here for some good information on how girls construct leadership). If you want to see the research on the lack of females in positions of power in sport click here , here, or here.

For those who respond to the birth of espnW by commenting “Zzzzzzzzzzzz”—don’t worry, espnW isn’t for you!! You are not the target market. Fans of men’s sport have a place to go for high quality, up to date sport news…it is called ESPN.com, all the ESPN TV channels and ESPN The Magazine. Fans (both male and female fans alike) of women’s sport and female athletes have not had a similar outlet to consume their sports and athletes they love and desperately want to follow, and now I hope we will.  For fans of men’s sport and male athletes: How would you feel is all the products associated with ESPN, which have largely covered men’s sports, disappeared tomorrow? What would you do? Well imagine that scenario and you will have an approximation of how fans of women’s sport have historically felt.

Stay tuned, the battle and debate over the contested terrain of sport media and females getting a decent share is just beginning.

For those who think espnW will be a bore, you don’t have to visit espnW…but you might want to when you have a daughter.