"Plays like a man" comment receives criticism in the blogosphere

Grand Slams tend to give those of us who follow sports media coverage much to think about. This year’s Roland Garros was no exception.

After losing in the quarterfinals Dominika Cibulkova said that her opponent, Samantha Stosur, “played like a man.”

Cibulkova presumably intended this statement to serve as an explanation as to why she lost, because according to the young Slovakian, “it’s really hard to play against a man.” 

While the post-match interview was not included in the official news release on the Roland Garros website, it did make the headlines of sports media sites in the United States including FoxSports, Yahoo! Sports and Deadspin. The phrase also caught on internationally and appeared in the Australian Courier-Mail and the Croatian 24 Sata, among others.

Cibulkova is not the first person to compare Stosur to a man. In 2010, Serbian tennis player, Jelena Jankovic said that Stosur gave her no chance to win because she played almost like a man. Jankovic added that Stosur’s game was “impressive.” Ai Sugyama made a similar statement. These were supposed to be compliments.

Similarly, Stosur is not the first female tennis player to be called a man by her peers. A few years ago Amelie Mauresmo received the same treatment.

This time, however, we encountered some critical commentaries in the online discourse.

Deadspin mildly called Cibulkova’s comment “bad timing.”

Better yet, a couple of bloggers associated with the Women Talk Sports blog network offered an analysis of the sexism and homophobia embedded in that comparison.

The blogger behind After Atlanta explained what the comment tells us about gender performance and sexuality here, while Courtney Szto argued that “playing like a man” should not be considered a compliment for female athletes and here is why.

As long as female athletes are expected to conform to the rules of femininity and as long as the idea that male athletes are superior to female athletes prevails, we are likely to hear that a female athlete "plays like a man." Yet, a critical analysis of this comparison in the online space carries the potential to change the dominant media discourse and, subsequently, perhaps even ideologies of gender.

With this year’s Roland Garros, we seemed to have moved forward in that regard.

-- Dunja Antunovic 

Twitter users compare men's basketball to the women's game

Although Butler left the floor feeling low after the men’s basketball national championship, it was women’s basketball that took a beating Monday night. In describing just how bad and boring the men’s final was, users of the site repeatedly compared it to the women’s game, implicitly discounting the sport in the process.

CBS analyst Roland S. Martin wrote “It is not a stretch to say that the women’s national championship game will be far more interesting.” Another blogger tweeted “I’d rather watch the #WNBA than this #NationalTitleGame.” ESPN.com’s “The sports guy” tweeted: April 2011: The month that women’s college basketball caught up to men’s college basketball. A

Make no mistake: The men’s national final was painful to watch. The two teams set a new record for lowest combined first half points total and Butler shot a horrid 18.8 percent from the field – the lowest mark ever in a national final game. And although UConn took home the trophy, they won by scoring just 53 points on 35 percent shooting.

The game was boring. Illustrating just how boring it was by comparing it to women’s basketball denies the women’s game the legitimacy it deserves. As Dave Zirin wrote, also on twitter. “I hope every last person hating on this game, watches the NCAA women's finals tomorrow. See two teams actually make shots.”

--Erin Whiteside

Changing the Title IX narrative: A prescription for change

Women’s sports activists are gathering around the country to recognize National Girls and Women in Sports Day and encourage advocates to keep pushing for the benefits mandated by Title IX.

Such efforts for equality are needed to keep issues like Title IX on the front burner; as advocacy groups often point out, the majority of institutions that fall within the purview of the law are out of compliance.

Although such efforts are needed, solely advocating for equality may not translate into the change women’s advocates are hoping for. Although sports fans may support the idea of Title IX – after all, notions of fairness and equity are cornerstones of American value systems, there is still not widespread acceptance for its application. This may be because of the consistent way in which sports are framed; as long as sports are situated in popular discourse as a space for the celebration of masculinity, cultural acceptance of women’s inclusion may falter.

It is thus critical, then, that we continue to support equality efforts, while also advocating for the adoption of new frames in sporting discourse to trouble the association between masculinity and sports. Such frames may stem from increased media coverage of women’s sports that focuses on athleticism rather than femininity. Continued visibility of women in authority positions – from athletic directors to play-by-play announcers – will also help deconstruct the notion that sports belong to men. Most importantly, however, is a continued push toward challenging existing cultural meanings of sports so we may move toward a vision in which women’s inclusion seems not only logical, but beneficial.

--Erin Whiteside

Redirecting the gaze

After the epic Baylor-UConn game appeared on national television, the game story also earned a spot on cnn.com’s mobile page. Given that the mobile front page includes about eight headlines on average, cnn’s choice to include the recap represented some nice exposure for women’s collegiate basketball.
The story largely focused on the exciting game, top-level early-season competition and the superstar battle between Maya Moore and Brittney Griner.
However, in discussing Griner, the author included a parenthetical quote from a UConn player expressing amazement at her size near the end of the story.
There is no question that at six-foot-eight, Griner’s stature is unusual. After all, the average height for women in the United States is five-foot-four and 95 percent of 20-year-old women in this country are under five-foot-10.
Given that Griner has received national coverage since she was in high school – and plenty more during her first year of college during the 2009-2010 season, her stature is well-documented and thus remarking on her unusual height is something of old news.
Further, the quote lacked any reference to Griner’s play in this major early-season game and instead brought a focus to Griner’s unusual body. In including the comment, the piece became part of an ongoing narrative that focuses on women’s bodies over their athleticism.
Researchers have long written on the ways in which popular media coverage often emphasizes women’s aesthetic appeal, a practice achieved through featuring female athletes in passive poses rather than action shots, for example, or focusing on their off-the-court activities instead of their on-court athletic endeavors. Both strategies ultimately present female athletes as female first and athlete second.
Remarking on Griner’s body is a new twist on this old theme. When we view female athletes depicted in revealing dresses or with their kids away from athletic competition, we are invited to focus on their femininity – and ultimately their feminine bodies -- as opposed to their athleticism. Focusing on Griner’s unusual body redirects our attention in the same way, taking the focus away from her exploits on the court and returning our gaze to her body.
--Erin Whiteside

Glitter, Bronzer and Power

The New York Times Magazine recently posted a stunning visual piece on women’s tennis that features a video gallery of the world’s top players hitting a ball in slow motion. In some ways, the piece takes us a step forward in depictions of female athletes. Rather than simply showing them smiling while holding a racket, we see these women hitting the ball with incredible force --muscles rippling and all, an image only enhanced by the extreme slow motion video.

However, with the exception of seeing these athletes in actual “action,” the piece is more a re-tread on the old theme of emphasizing beauty over athleticism when depicting female athletes. Taken in its full context, the piece unfortunately minimizes the displays of exertion and maximizes sexuality and beauty.

For instance, Serena Williams, arguably the most powerful woman in tennis today, is seen smacking an unseen ball with ferocious intensity. However, that ball explodes in an avalanche of glitter in front of Williams, who is wearing a sequined dress, body glitter and flowing hair. Like Williams, many of the players are wearing body glitter or bronzer while wearing nightclub-style dresses, several not-so-subtle markers of femininity.

Perhaps most troubling is the way several of the athletes’ bodies are literally chopped up, with the camera focusing only on their legs, abs or breasts. For example, viewers see Samantha Stosur’s face for only a split second as the camera zooms into her breasts as she hits the ball, her head literally cut out of the frame. The video of Victoria Azarenka starts at her shoes and slowly pans up her legs, bare stomach and breasts, mimicking the way a film director might shoot a scene to indicate a man “checking out” a woman. The image of her hitting the ball happens only at the very end, and even then her long, loose and untied hair flows around her face in an image closer to what we might see in Sports Illustrated swimsuit than at Wimbledon. In fact, nearly all the women have loose, untied and flowing hair, another common feminine marker.

Even the title of the piece – “The Beauty of Power” – hints at the discomfort we have at a cultural level of associating women with raw physical power. By labeling these images as not just “power” images, but “beautiful images of power,” viewers are reminded that the players are beautiful [read: feminine] and thus “normal women” despite the displays of muscles and exertion.

In these ways, the players are offered as objects of sexual desire, and presented to the viewer from the perspective of the heterosexual male gaze. By doing so, the focus is put on the women’s sexuality rather than on the displays of strength that the camera also captures. Ultimately, despite the video of female athletes in action, the piece is an overall disappointment, especially given the potential it had to present the physical power and athleticism of the women’s tennis elite.

--Erin Whiteside

Kagan once played softball, which means she's gay?

Ever since President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, questions about her sexuality have figured into the overall news narrative. Recently, news sources have begun showing a picture of Kagan playing softball, and suggesting that her affiliation with the sport shows that she is indeed lesbian. (Pat Buchanan, the MSNBC pundit, provided particularly insightful commentary, stating that playing softball is a lesbian “signal,” just like “two guys sunbathing together” brings the “immediate implication that they’re gay.”) Aside from the problematic ideology that an out lesbian is somehow a mark in the negative column in evaluating this potential justice, the implication draws from an age-old stereotype about female athletes. News media own the responsibility of ethically informing the public so that we may become better citizens equipped to make educated decisions. What Kagan’s short-lived amateur softball career has to do with her potential as a Supreme Court justice is unclear. What is clear, however, is the persistent stigmatization of women who do not conform to traditional notions of femininity, including those who have the gall to use their muscles and swing for the fences on a softball field.

--Erin Whiteside

NBC: World's best girls give it their all in the women's downhill

As Julia Mancuso whipped around the gates during the women’s downhill at the Vancouver Olympics, the NBC announcers noted the icy and difficult conditions. “She likes a course that is rough and bumpy,” said analyst Christin Cooper. “She says that it eliminates some of the advantage of the larger girls that have more mass that can kind of go like freight trains down a smooth course.”
Later, Cooper said during Elisabeth Goergl’s bronze-medal run, “These girls have got to really nail it aggressively all the way down the course.”
In fact, Cooper repeatedly referred to the women’s skiers as girls, something that also appeared on NBC’s liveblog of the event, which noted that “it's scary to see these girls go down at such speeds.”
Calling the women’s skiers girls trivializes and delegitimizes women’s sports participation in two ways.
First, each instance in which the skiers were labeled as “girls” came at a time when the related description violated gender norms in some way. For example, femininity is at odds with the notion of a “big” female moving like a “freight train.” In the same way, aggression is culturally marked as masculine, and attacking a mountain at break-neck speed is hardly a traditional feminine quality. Calling the skiers girls in a context where they are being described in terms that often reference masculinity neutralizes that apparent oxymoron – and ultimately preserves a more traditional representation of gender.
Second, “girls” playing sports don’t violate gender norms in the way that “women” playing sports do. When you are a “girl,” it’s okay to engage in trivial and fun pursuits like sports; women, on the other hand, are expected to perform traditional forms of femininity, which is at odds with the masculine notions of competition and sports.
This logic also adds another level of explanation to Deford's question about the lack of attention given to the UConn women's basketball team. The undefeated Huskies do not enjoy the fan adoration Lindsay Vonn receives, which Marie Hardin notes is largely because Vonn participates in a sport that doesn't challenge gender norms in the way that contact sports like basketball do (see below).
Still, the Huskies have a much stronger following than any WNBA team -- after all, they're still college "girls," which makes their violation of gender norms in a contact sport less egregious than the professional women.
--Erin Whiteside

Commentary on SI's Vonn cover: Why the outrage?

A blog post earlier today by Nicole LaVoi, a researcher at the Tucker Center for Girls and Women in Sport at the University of Minnesota, has drawn a great deal of attention from national and international media.
It has also drawn a great deal of rage aimed directly at LaVoi. To summarize the LaVoi's post: She suggests -- based on research and a well-documented pattern by SI -- that the magazine's cover photo of skier Lindsay Vonn continues a pattern of general objectification and sexualization of female athletes.
LaVoi's observation isn't a stretch at all for women's sports advocates well versed in the ways female athletes have been depicted for decades.
The vitriol aimed at her in response to the post has been swift and ugly, however. I won't belabor it here (You can read it yourself.)
Although some of the comments clearly reflect -- in a civil tone -- disagreement with LaVoi about whether this particular shot of Vonn is meant to objectify or sexualize her, many comments aim to completely discredit LaVoi with a range of ridiculous accusations.
The fact is that women who attempt to speak with authority about sports have often been the target of sexist attacks. That's because sports have been primarily defined as a male domain -- a place where traditional "tough guy" masculinity is reinforced. The rights provided to girls and women via Title IX have certainly started to challenge that assumption, but scores of studies show that we're far from equitable on many fronts.
Women's sports advocates who speak out, then, run the risk of drawing a great deal of criticism because they are asserting their voices -- against the grain -- in an environment where women generally sidelined from having any real power.
But it is the voices of LaVoi and many others -- including those on the Women Talk Sports network -- that continue to challenge the norms and chip away at constricting gender roles for men and women in sports and the larger culture.
They may make many people uncomfortable -- even outraged. But they are essential.
--Marie Hardin

When Sports Stars Become Authority Figures, Women Lose

By now anyone interested in sports knows about the upcoming Tim Tebow ad set to appear during the Superbowl. Feminists and other activist groups have critiqued the ad for providing unsafe and misleading information to women about their reproductive health (see here, here and here for more on that). But this is more than just an anti-choice ad: it’s the manifestation of a hegemonic system that creates male sports stars who in turn seem perfectly natural choices to sell any product or in this case, speak on any issue from the biggest mediated platform in American sports.

Tebow is a known social conservative, but just as importantly for this message, a star football player. There’s a reason Focus on the Family isn’t simply airing an ad with James Dobson discussing abortion. Rather, it’s because he is a football star that Tebow is the star of the ad. And it is because of his exploits on the football field, combined with a media system that privileges “power” men’s sports, that Tebow is a recognizable star in the first place.

And herein lies the problem for women: As long as sports – and especially football – are culturally understood as a space only appropriate for men, female athletes will simply never earn a comparable type of hero status, and therefore cannot enter the discourse to speak on political issues with the same kind of impact– even those central to women’s lives.
--Erin Whiteside

Caster Semenya, the gender binary, and a case for the ‘sport continuum’

If you’re only vaguely familiar with the troubling case of sex-testing in sport and the Caster Semenya case, a new article in The New Yorker by Ariel Levy may offer the most incisive, comprehensive look at the case and the issues around it. Levy masterfully underscores the issues of racism and the power of the gender binary that underpin the tragic events around an 18-year-old South African runner.
In a Q-&-A about the article on the New Yorker Web site, Levy drives home her point about the myth of the gender binary -- and the ways this case has clearly upset it. She writes, “I think what has really got people worked up in the Semenya case is gender, not fairness. I think the idea that ultimately the boundary between male and female is porous is deeply destabilizing … our whole world is organized around gender.”
In the article, Levy addresses the problem – made abundantly clear by the Semenya case -- that the gender binary (defining male and female as rigidly defined, oppositional categories) presents for organizing sports. It has worked masterfully at reinforcing a hierarchy that has positioned women as the athletic underclass. But it’s not truthful, realistic or fair.
This is a case that has been made by sports sociologists for decades. Perhaps the most thought-provoking alternative to understand women and men in relationship to sports has been suggested by Mary Jo Kane, who in 1995 wrote about what she called the “sport continuum” – where we allow fluidity in our understanding of women and men and we also understand that men and women individual may outperform one another and possess varying degrees of strength and speed.
Accepting sport and gender on a continuum would force us to re-organize sport – a Herculean task, as Levy points out in her well-written piece. But as the Semenya case demonstrates: the gender binary as an organizer for sports simply doesn’t work – and the results are unfair and even devastating for the most vulnerable. -- Marie Hardin

Re-framing Title IX

Women’s sports blogs have been abuzz recently with the news that an Alabama softball coach has filed a Title IX complaint against Mobile County schools. In the complaint, coach Tyler Murray alleges that girls sports are denied access and facilities given to the boys football team and also questions the extra summer pay given to football coaches. It will be interesting to keep an eye on the news coverage of this complaint, given the opportunity it provides sports journalists to address the unquestioned cultural superiority of football.

We have argued that in Title IX news coverage, most mainstream news outlets agree with the law’s underlying basic premise: everyone deserves equality and justice. In fact, in our analysis of Title IX op-eds written by national newspapers over a recent three year period, not one opposed the law.

Good news, right?

But even while supporting the idea of Title IX, the op-ed authors in our analysis often described sports as a space naturally owned and defined by men. As one stated, it is time for boys to “share, not surrender, their field.” Narratives within arguments touting the law’s righteousness also saw women as naturally less interested in sports, allowing the writers to develop an argument that essentially positioned Title IX as right and just but not really needed. Why should we dedicate equal resources (and take away from men who naturally deserve them) if there isn’t equal interest and aptitude among women?

In order for opinions on Title IX to change in a way that benefits women’s sports along with “minor” men’s sports, advocates must go beyond simply arguing for gender equality. Suggesting only that women and men deserve equal money does not challenge fundamentally patriarchal ideology that undermines the logic of Title IX. Rather, we must speak about Title IX and sports in ways that disrupt troubling taken-for-granted notions of sports, like the unquestioned supremacy of football in our culture or the idea that boys and men are naturally suited for sports.

Supporting equality is still critically important, but only part of the necessary rhetorical equation. And unless new frames enter the debate, Title IX will continue to be viewed as something that is good in theory but illogical in practice.

-Erin Whiteside

Reebok to women: Get the body that men want

In a new series of provocative ads, Reebok tells women in no uncertain terms what other apparel companies often only suggest under the guise of empowerment: that exercising in the company’s new shoe will make them more sexually desirable to men. One features only a shot of a woman’s breasts “talking” about the woman’s now toned backside -- which came courtesy of the shoes. The slogan: “Make your boobs jealous.” Another features a woman talking about the shoes, only to have the camera leave her face when she bends over to lace them up and pan down to her backside, akin to a pair of roving male eyes. Focusing only on a woman’s breasts, or positioning the camera to resemble wandering eyes are what media scholars call the camera’s “male gaze,” a concept that suggests patriarchal power relationships are reproduced through mediated images. In Reebok’s ads, women are reduced to a series of body parts and rewarded for appealing to the camera’s eye. The (male) camera tells women that exercising will make them objects of male desire. When women began playing organized sports in the early 1900s, critics said sports made women too manly; today Reebok tells women that exercise will make them more desirable. The message may be slightly different, but the end goal of appealing to men is the same. These new Reebok ads, then, are nothing new at all. Rather, they are part of a centuries-old narrative that polices women’s bodies to the benefit and pleasure of men, while denying women a space to find their own motivation for engaging in sports and other forms of exercise.
-Erin Whiteside

Images that "sell" to young female athletes

Researchers at Bowling Green State University, the University of Memphis and the University of Iowa presented results of a study during the annual NASSS conference today suggesting that adolescent girls involved in sports are generally attracted to images of sportswomen that are athletically oriented -- not those that emphasize traditional femininity. The study, led by Vikki Krane(BGSU) and Sally Ross (Memphis), has implications for the marketing of women's collegiate sports toward the girls these programs may someday try to recruit: active, sports-focused images may be the most effective in attracting girls to sports events and athletic participation. The marketing materials (posters, programs, guides) often used for women's collegiate programs now often downplay these types of images in favor of more traditionally "feminine" photos of athletes.

Media coverage of Serena Williams' outburst emphasizes gender norms

Serena Williams, in her outburst at the U.S. Open, stepped outside the box of what is considered acceptable behavior for female athletes, according to the most recent report from the John Curley Center for Sports Journalism. We analyzed articles from both traditional and new media sources to answer questions about the way Williams was portrayed in coverage of her outburst. The most interesting findings concerned comparisons between Williams and other male and female athletes. We found that although Williams was more often compared to male athletes, comparisons between her and other female athletes were more likely to be negative. Further, in articles that did compare Williams negatively to other female athletes, Kim Clijsters' (her opponent in the match who went on to win the Open) motherhood was more likely to be mentioned. One Yahoo! Sports article went as far as to call Clijsters the Open's "silver lining" after the "stain" left by Williams' outburst.

This finding is, sadly, unsurprising. Gender norms are valued in our society, and while we might be able to stomach a male behaving “violently” during a sports match, females, even female athletes, are “supposed” to be -- above all -- women. Society needed a Kim Clijsters, a mother and wife who exemplifies our ideals of femininity, to put us at ease after the Williams outburst.

This is not to argue that Williams’ behavior was acceptable or undeserving of punishment. Any athlete who threatens an official should be rebuked. However, if it had been a male athlete, perhaps an opponent of Roger Federer (who recently become a dad), would the media be mentioning Federer’s fatherhood in negative commentary about the male offender?

Posted by Erin Ash

From sex symbol to real threat

Although much of the mainstream media hailed Danica Patrick's IRL victory as a boost to IndyCar racing and predicted that Patrick's marketability would soar, it's interesting to see the reaction of popular sports blogs, where her historic win topped the discussion, according to Sports Business Daily. Not surprisingly, some (including the Deadspin and The Big Lead) found reason in Patrick's win to question the validity of auto racing as a sport or invited degrading, sexist comments from fans. What will be interesting over the next few months will be to see how mainstream coverage of Patrick evolves, as she has proven the ability of women to threaten the dominance of men in this sport.