I found an article online today about Serena Williams and her current tennis status. The article itself is about women's tennis and whether or not there are any "Williamses of tomorrow" among younger players, because the Williams sisters are still at the top; however, within this article, there are some very sexist comments. The main paragraph that bothered me was this one:
Serena hasn't been an easy champion to warm to over the years, with forehands and backhands wielded like a woodman's ax, her ogre-like hunger for victory, her steamrollering of opponents, and her profanity-laced bullying of a U.S. Open lineswoman in 2009. She has been physically and mentally awesome, she commands respect, is sometimes provocative, charming and cheeky, but appeared too dominant to be deep-down lovable.
Why do we have a standard in our culture that all women, regardless of their occupation or even personality, should ultimately be lovable? Just as all men don't fit into the hypermasculine mold of all rationality and no emotion, not all women fit into the emotional and nurturing mold of femininity. The writer, John Leicester, gives her credit for being "physically and mentally awesome," as well as someone worthy of respect, yet that is apparently not enough; she must be lovable, and to be lovable, she must stop being dominant (subtext: because that's not ladylike). Men are never criticized for being too dominant, especially in a field like athletics where a tough attitude is required.
Also, the description of her tennis techniques and player characteristics all have a negative tone to them, precisely because they are all associated with masculine qualities (ogre-like, steamrollering, woodman's ax). When you work around the negative tone, these descriptors basically say that Serena is tough and aggressive, often beats her opponents by a landslide, and wields a strong arm behind her tennis racket. Aren't these all qualities that one hopes for, in fact, requires, in a star athlete? Why, then, are they seen as negative because the player is female? Rafael Nadal, considered one of the more aggressive male players at Wimbledon right now, is described as "audacious" and his game as "skillfully executed." "His serve fizzed and crackled," wrote Jim White. Instead of having "ogre-like hunger for victory," Nadal simply "knows how to win." The descriptions are clearly filled with assumptions about how men and women are (or should be) different, even within the same sport. The qualities that are revered in a man are looked down upon in a woman.
In related sexism against the Williams sisters, Venus has caught a lot of criticism for the fancy white tennis outfit she sported recently. This article that I read calls the outfit a "fashion disaster" and discusses how unflattering her outfit was, pointing out that the top "made her chest look saggy as she ran around the court." Are we really that concerned about whether a tennis player's chest looks saggy or not while she's running around and playing a professional sport? Apparently, we are. The Internet is full of articles and blog posts criticizing the on-court fashion sense of the Williams sisters. Women in sports just can't catch a break. They not only have to be 'hot' and look 'glamorous' at after hours events, they also have to look good during games, when their focus is on the game (their profession!). I was really disappointed this morning when doing a search (for work) on the top athletes of today, all I could find were sexist articles and posts about these incredible female athletes.
No comments:
Post a Comment