Ogres or Fashionistas: The Modern Female Tennis Player?

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.

Y'all Come Back Now!! (ugh)

Warning: I'm going to stray from feminism a little bit.

As previously stated, I've been re-reading The Devil Wears Prada for some light, easy summer reading; however, it's not as easy as I'd hoped. Lauren Weisberger, the author, and/or Andi Sachs, the main character, are total haters of the South! The main character is literally disgusted by the fact that her sister married a Texan, and even more disgusted by the fact that her sister has picked up a bit of a Southern accent after living in Texas, with a Southern man, for several years. The character talks about actually cringing every time her brother-in-law speaks. Seriously? I know that I've grown up around Southern accents, but I can't imagine why it's any more cringe-worthy than any other accent (or why any accent is cringe-worthy, for that matter).

Later in the book, Andi has to work at a party full of Southern guests. Very wealthy guests. She describes the rich guests as women with big-hair and tackily, over-applied make-up. Again: seriously? Is this the only image of Southerners (or rich Southerners) out there? And she doesn't even choose one character to note that not all Southerners fit any stereotypes (she reluctantly admits that her brother-in-law is nice, but this is followed by the cringing remark, so it doesn't count in my book). I hate to think that this is how people unfamiliar with the South still think of us but I think it really might be.

Women are trying to move past stereotypes of virgin/whore, passive, emotional, etc. Racial and ethnic minorities continue to fight against hundreds of offensive stereotypes. GLBT groups and people are fighting against narrow-minded, 2-dimensional representations of themselves in the media. Why aren't we Southerners fighting against the images of us as stupid, red-neck, hick, tacky and unsophisticated people? Just like any other stereotypes, these images have actual effects on our day-to-day lives (like when my mother gave a formal, professional presentation for work, and a man on the panel could only tell her how impressed he was that she, a Southern woman, was able to speak quickly and articulate!).

I know this has nothing to do with feminism, but what can I say? Today I'm not angry as a feminist.
I'm angry as a Southerner.

Work Dress

Today, I tried to wear actual business attire to work today, at least, casual, 90-degree Mississippi heat business attire. I wore slacks, a V-neck shirt with a camisole underneath and ..... heels! 2 and a half inch heels. I guess in the grand scheme of things, 2 and a half inches aren't a huge deal (I'm reading my guilty pleasure summer book, The Devil Wears Prada, and there's constant mention of four inch Stilettos) but for a girl who wears flip-flops and sandals, and tennis shoes if absolutely necessary, these heels were a big deal. And they were even pretty comfortable. I don't stand up all day so I was never in pain or anything. But still, it makes me wonder, why do women have to dress this way? Even working in a casual, small office (there are three of us, and this week it's only two), I still felt compelled to try to amp up my business clothing. And the other woman who works there was wearing heels today, and I think does on many days. We have to walk up 26 steps to get to work, after crossing a very uneven gravel parking lot. We have to walk back and forth, to and from each other's offices as well as to and from the bathroom and the copier. Shoes that are difficult to walk in or uncomfortable in anyway are simply impractical.

So what's the point? Heels are supposed to make your legs and your ass look better right? So, based on that logic, shouldn't they be worn on nights out and special occasions? Is the office really the place to try out your sexiest looks? OR, more interestingly, are the current, unspoken rules of what constitutes female work attire descendants of male ideas about how women should look attractive, appealing and available to them at all times? After all, think of all the stereotypes about secretaries; or not even the stereotypes, even just the ways men joke about secretaries, with all the sexual innuendo, etc.

There is, as always, a double standard. Women are supposed to dress professionally to be taken seriously in the work world, yet the standards for dressing professionally are intended to make them look sexy and appealing (which is not the best way to be taken seriously). I mentioned in an old blog post the court case Ann Hopkins vs. Price Waterhouse, a case in which the woman was denied a promotion because she didn't dress enough "like a woman." So even though she was clearly dressing in a way that made her feel comfortable and professional, the men in charge of promoting her felt that her lack of make-up and feminine touches meant she wasn't serious about getting ahead in her career (the implication being that the make-up and feminine touches are required to impress the men who are in charge).

And yet, even after considering all this, I don't necessarily want to give up the heels (though I also don't want to wear them tomorrow). I felt more professional-looking at work today. Maybe it's because I've been socialized to see that kind of outfit as professional women's wear, but even though I was in some ways less comfortable, I was pleased with my appearance. And looking back on it, it makes me really sad, and kind of shocks me, how easily I slipped into an attitude of "no pain, no gain" when it comes to my fashion.

Even feminists don't have it all figured out all the time.

Summer Reading

So, it's been far too long since I've written a new post. However, I also haven't found the time to work on anything. So for the time being, I'm going to recommend some summer reading:

Mississippi Sissy by Kevin Sessums (yes, I wrote about it in the last post, but it's worth it!)
An Invisible Sign of My Own by Aimee Bender
The Particular Sadness of Lemon Cake by Aimee Bender (she's quickly becoming my new favorite author!)
The Queen's Fool by Philippa Gregory (a guilty pleasure, but a pretty fun read)
Queenpin by Megan Abbott
Bury Me Deep by Megan Abbott
The Blind Assassin by Margaret Atwood
The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood (really, anything by Atwood is great, but these are my favorites!)
Daisy Fay and the Miracle Man by Fannie Flagg
Prep by Curtis Sittenfeld
A Single Man by Christopher Isherwood
Woman Warrior by Maxine Hong Kingston

I promise to be back soon with something new and interesting to write about!

Mississippi Sissy- Read It!!

I just finished reading Mississippi Sissy by Kevin Sessums. It's incredible. I've never been more ashamed and, simultaneously, more proud to be a Southerner than I was while reading this memoir. I've never felt particularly connected to Southern culture, or even felt particularly Southern, but in this book I found dozens of little sayings, jingles, behaviors, or references that I recognized from my own Mississippi upbringing (I had completely forgotten about the "lil' shortnin' bread" song!). And his story of loss and grief intermingled with his coming-of-age and attempting to find himself in a culture that is less receptive than most is beautifully told. This is a great, great book and everyone should read it!

Film vs. Novel: Fried Green Tomatoes

I finally finished reading Fannie Flagg's Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe. I think it took me so long to finish this book (years, in fact) because it's nothing like the movie, Fried Green Tomatoes, which I grew up watching. But now that I've finished it I can definitely say: the book is so much better!

First of all, I love the film. Love it. I love Jessica Tandy and Kathy Bates, I love Mary-Louise Parker and Mary Stuart Masterson. The film is great. However, the film avoids the core of Idgie and Ruth's relationship: namely, that it is a loving, sexual relationship between women. The film shows two women who have an intense friendship, an indivisible bond, and maybe even some sexual desire (that is not acted on). Ruth comes to live with her friend out of desperation: she is constantly abused by her husband and has to escape before she has a baby in such a horrible environment. There are moments of intimacy, sure, but the relationship is never defined, by Ruth and Idgie or by other members of the community, as anything but platonic.

The film's interpretation of this relationship makes me so sad because it's the reason the book is so interesting. In the book, Idgie and Ruth have an open lesbian relationship. Ruth leaves to get married because she feels Idgie is too young to choose a partner, not because she doesn't love or need her. When Idgie gets lonely, she visits the local prostitute (I couldn't think of a nicer word for her, but prostitute doesn't really fit), Eva. When Ruth is living with Idgie and about to have her baby, Idgie's father gives her what I have to call a 'man-to-man' talk; he talks to her about the responsibilities of caring for and supporting a family. The book is so interesting because it shows an open lesbian relationship in the South in the 1930s (and on) that is never questioned, never scorned and never ridiculed. No one in the book wonders why two women are living together, raising a child. No one questions Idgie's right to discipline Stump, as another parent would. No one questions the love and devotion that exists between Ruth and Idgie. Everyone simply understands that Ruth and Idgie are a loving a couple like any other.

What I think the film really gets right is Kathy Bates's character, Evelyn Couch. She may be one of my favorite literary characters ever. In the beginning of the novel, she is exactly the woman that Betty Friedan was writing about: She's married because she thought she had to be. She never had sex before marriage for fear of the bad girl reputation, but finds as an adult that she has less knowledge of sex than her sixteen-year-old daughter; worse, she discovers that nothing horrible ever happened to the bad girls in high school, they are all unhappy or happy, married or not, just like everyone else. She feels like she missed out on feminism, and doesn't understand it. She lacks control in her life and tries to gain it through hopeless dieting. Through the meetings with Miss Threadgoode and the stories of Idgie and Ruth, Evelyn gains the confidence and understanding she needed to take back control of her life. The film shows this beautifully, with Kathy Bates slowly getting stronger, going through an angry, man-hating phase, and finally settling down in a place where she's happy, employed, and healthier.

The biggest travesty of the film is the ending, when we discover that Miss Threadgoode has been Idgie all along. Never mind that she has explicitly told us that she married into the Threadgoode family by marrying Idgie's brother Cleo (incest anyone?). Never mind that she's discussed having a child of her own. As a professor of mine put it, the filmmakers seemed to have wanted to 'redeem' Idgie, by having her straighten up (literally), marry a man and have a family of her own. Never mind that it doesn't fit the character of Idgie, whom we've watched onscreen for an hour and a half at this point! Never mind that it doesn't make any sense!! I hate to think of this move being remade, because of the beautiful performances by all of the actors involved; but, I would like to see a film that explored the relationship between Ruth and Idgie as it was written to be.

I don't want this to be a rant against the film, because I do love it. I've watched that movie since before I can remember. My grandmother looks and sounds just like Jessica Tandy, and I love all the memories of watching the movie with my sisters and seeing our grandmother so perfectly imitated onscreen. But for those who love the film, or even who have never seen it, Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe by Fannie Flagg is a must-read novel.

Sassy Gay Friend

Like many other people, I love wasting time on youtube. And it was on this fabulous website that I discovered Sassy Gay Friend. I love these videos! If you haven't seen them, Sassy Gay Friend is, you guessed it, a gay man who pops up to provide an alternate ending to famous, but tragic, female characters. The first few videos have SGF saving the lives of Juliet, Ophelia, Desdemona and Lady MacBeth; after that, he branches out from Shakespeare to save the lives (or destinies) of The Giving Tree, Eve, and Miss Havisham. (Recently, he also tackled Nina from Black Swan, but I don't like this one.) In each video, SGF sassily talks the women out of ending (or otherwise destroying) their lives.

First of all, I love these videos because they are hilarious! Especially in the first few, SGF makes very clever jokes based on the text he's making fun of. ("I think you're 14 and you're an idiot. You took a roofie from a priest. Look at your life. Look at your choices." -Juliet video) Also, he often points out the absurdity of the power dynamics between men and women at that time; in Desdemona's video he says, "Some guy ends up with your handkerchief so your husband gets to murder you?" In each of these videos, he takes a female character who is, at least by the end of her literary journey, powerless, and gives her strength to make a change.

But what about the continued stereotype of gay men as simply fun accessories for straight women? In most (commercial) movies I have seen with a gay male character, he is the sidekick to the female heroine (Monster-in-Law, The Devil Wears Prada, Easy A, Bridget Jones's Diary, Clueless, to name a few off the top of my head). The gay friend is usually a good shopping buddy, a good listener, a shoulder to cry on, and, most importantly, single, and therefore available to the female, until the end of the film (if even then). Many of these characters in commercial films have little importance as people; they are sidekicks, crutches and open arms. And aren't the Sassy Gay Friend videos just perpetuating this stereotype?

In some ways, I think they could be. But I think, more than that, these videos are making fun of these stereotypes. His language and mannerisms are completely over the top. And he is always pointing out the obvious that the straight girls are completely unable to see. It's almost as if the creators of SGF are saying, "OK, you want to make the sassy gay friend a necessary accessory to the straight woman? All right then, he'll just be way smarter and more clever than her! And he'll save her life! Take that!" 

At least, that's what I hope they're saying. I'll definitely keep watching these videos as long as they keep making them.