The world has this crazy thing, which still goes on today that there must be an explanation or a category for any and everyone:
Let's take a look at Serena Williams who won 2015 Sportsperson of the year, (who's closest opponent was a horse), and whom also has been the best tennis player since I've pretty much been alive. She is an African American woman, who has a killer athletic body. But apparently her body make-up was TOO newsworthy for New York Times journalist, Ben Rothenberg. "Her rivals could try to emulate her physique, but most of them choose not to," Rothenberg said.
Can Serena Williams just be appreciated for what she does and how often she does is it. We know Serena Williams is great at what she does, but apparently, according to media, no one wants to "look" like her, so no one will be as good as her. The phrase "woman" is thrown around a lot talking about Serena and her physique, and it's not to determine her gender. It's because her opponents find it conflicting to be and appear physically fit and to be "woman". Instead of praising her, media would rather question and compare her ability and looks to every other [white] woman in the sport of tennis.
Can she just live and just be a damn good tennis player?
How do you all feel about this topic? Was the article necessary? Racist? Article
Serena Williams is a powerhouse. Growing up, it was encouraging to see someone who looked like me be successful and good at a particular craft. I wanted to strive to be like her, and I was not the only one she impacted and still does to this day. Women have had to deal with body image and the pressures associated with that for centuries. It is disheartening to see so many talented and healthy female athletes go through these same pressures in a field where you would not think these standards of beauty would be as important.
ReplyDeleteFeminism can be tricky sometimes with the number of different ideas as to what is right. When Serena was unveiled as the Sportsperson of The Year, an honor traditionally held by men, feminists on both sides jumped at the opportunity to critique. First there were some who were angry that they did not portray Serena in a light that was similar to the male honorees before her. Some thought that the magazine was oppressing her by showing off her body and playing up to the mostly male readership. Others applauded Serena for being comfortable in her own skin and celebrating being a woman. In the photo (which can be seen above), she is glammed up, sexy, and she proudly exudes confidence. I remember the twitter poll that asked readers to select Serena or a horse and that was insensitive on many levels. To compare this successful black female athlete to a horse, a non human animal was atrocious. And then we ask: Are black women the most oppressed group? This particular event could definitely lend itself to be evidence in favor of that question.
I, too, find the obsession within our culture to explain differences concerning. We love putting people into restrictive boxes that do not particularly define who they are so that we as a culture can explain our differences rather than treat each other the same. The dichotomous (either/or) thinking that Patricia Hill Collins discussed describes this perfectly. You can be a great athlete, but you cannot be beautiful. You can be on the cover of a sports magazine, but you have to be wearing something related to your sport. You can be a female athlete, but you have to be. When we continue to think in only these terms, we limit our scope and ignore the complex intersections that make us who we are--that make Serena the powerhouse, champion that she is. We do not have to focus on her body type to recognize her talents and achievements.
Like Vel mentioned there has not been many women athletes that have been honored by Sports Illustrated. Bonnie Blair won Sports Illustrated Sportsperson of the Year in 1994 for speed skating. Serena Williams is the first woman athlete (excluding the collective US Women’s Soccer Team in 1999 who won the World Cup) to receive the Sports Illustrated Sportsperson of the Year. In the 2015 online poll for the Sports Illustrated Sportsperson of the Year Serena Williams lost against a horse as Vel and Valyncia both referenced. Many people were outraged that Sports Illustrated decided to pick her as the winner. I really don’t think there would have been a public outrage if the person against the horse would have been a man. On top of the nonsense sexism that Serena was experiencing from the Sports Illustrated online poll results, the article from New York Times discusses Serena’s body at length. The article by New York Times in my opinion has a strong tone of racism and sexism. The quote Valyncia mentioned from the NYT article by Ben Rothenberg, about how most women could try to look like her, but they choose not to, also stood out to me. Rothenberg discusses Serena’s body throughout the article and comments on how most women in tennis are slender. He talks about body image issues and the ideal women’s body for athletes by using white women as the standard. He focuses on the slender women in tennis while criticizing Serena’s body. He is normalizing and sexualizing white women athletes. I am really sickened that he uses white women athletes as the standard that Serena chooses to not uphold, which somehow makes her less womanlike. The words, which Rothenberg uses to describe Serena’s body along with the tone of the article, remind me a lot of how Sarah Bartman was seen as a specimen that no other woman looked like or would want to look like. The description of her body had a very animal-like tone as well. Which when you think about the fact she was polled against a horse really is more upsetting. I wonder if the reason why some accepted the horse more was because people valued a horse more than they did a black woman athlete.
ReplyDeleteAnother quote which upset me in the article was:
“Tomasz Wiktorowski, the coach of Agnieszka Radwanska, 5 feet 8 and 123 pounds, says, ‘It’s our decision to keep her as the smallest player in the top 10. Because, first of all she’s a woman, and she wants to be a woman.’”
The inclusion of this quote in the article from my point of view attacks Serena’s womanhood. It is saying that you can’t look like Serena in be a woman. This is dichotomous thinking.
I also noticed, like Vel, that Sports Illustrated portrayed Serena Willams’ body in a very feminine way. The way she posed and the way she dressed was very sexual. I looked into the reasoning behind this and it was Serena’s idea. She said that she wanted to be seen as more feminine. It’s her body and she can portray it anyway she wants. I think it’s great she wants to celebrate her femininity and sexuality. As much as she has been attacked about looking like a man (JK Rowling tweet etc.) this year and previous years I would also probably want to show people that I am just as much a “woman” as I am an athlete. My only hope is that she was completely comfortable taking that picture and wasn’t persuaded to take a more sexualized pose. Does anyone have a different opinion about the picture? Or feel like she was forced to take the picture because of many of the public’s response to her body?
I agree with everything you guys have said so far. While I was reading what Michelle wrote about doing some background research into Serena's pose on the cover of Sports Illustrated, part of me wondered how much of that she did for herself. Serena claims she posed in that way to highlight her femininity, but part of me wonders if she decided to pose in this particular way because of the negative reaction from the public about her body. I am in no way trying to take away or diminish her agency. Maybe she would have chosen to pose this way if nothing had been said about her body at all. However, I just have to ask myself if her posing in this way looking super glam was in response to the public backlash about her body not being 'feminine enough.' There are arguments for both sides about Serena's cover shot and what it means for feminism. Here is an article from The Independent where you can see both sides of the argument http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/serena-williams-hits-back-at-critics-of-her-sports-illustrated-cover-a6778086.html (hopefully it works, I'm really bad with technology). What do you guys think? Is this picture representative of a powerful woman, or is she objectifying herself as a sex object only? When I look at the picture, I see a strong, powerful, female athlete who has worked extremely hard to get where she is. Thinking a woman has to be either powerful or feminine but can't be both is exactly the dangerous dichotomous thinking Patricia Hill Collins was writing about.
ReplyDeleteWhen thinking about this in comparison to our readings, you can easily draw comparisons between this and Sarah Bartman. Bartman was analyzed, studied, and compared to animals. When reading about her, it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking, "Oh, well, that was way back when. Things like that don't happen now." But, you are kidding yourself if you think that's true, and this article about Serena Williams is the perfect example. Serena was literally compared to a horse. This is a perfect modern day example of Sarah Bartman. Thank you, Valyncia for bringing this article to my attention as a reminder of how much more work has to be done.
I agree with you that it's unclear what the underlying motivations for Serena were to take the photo that is on the cover of SI magazine. I can imagine that it was a response to the public criticizing her body as not feminine. It makes me so upset for someone to talk about another persons body in a negative way.
DeleteI like to see this as a picture that shows she is showing the world that she is powerful, feminine and an amazing athlete. She doesn't need to be feminine to be a woman, but I applaud her owning her body and taking a confident pose. I don't really agree with the opinion that says this picture makes her less of an athlete. How could the way she dress or the way she poses in a picture affect the way she plays tennis? That's the same either/or thinking that says she has to be feminine to be a woman like you (Olivia) mentioned.
I enjoyed reading the article you posted. It's good to hear from two sides of feminism! Thank you for sharing it!
Like both Vel and Michele mentioned Serena Williams is one of few women to ever be honored by sports illustrated and instead of celebrating her and everything she has accomplished she is being attacked. If she were a male she would be praised for her large muscles and great strength. Instead Serena is being criticized by other tennis players and professionals in the field for her athletic appearance.
ReplyDeleteInstead of focusing on the sport of tennis all of these female athletes are seemingly more concerned with the way their arms look while hitting a backhand. Like Michele mentioned they are exercising dichotomous thinking this is expressed in the article when talking about the players sizes:
“Tomasz Wiktorowski, the coach of Agnieszka Radwanska, 5 feet 8 and 123 pounds, says, ‘It’s our decision to keep her as the smallest player in the top 10. Because, first of all she’s a woman, and she wants to be a woman.’”
I think this quote is just flat out rude in regards to Serena Williams. It is basically insinuating that because she has a larger frame and defined muscles that she is not a woman. How dare this man to question Serena’s womanhood solely based on her looks. Why can she not be muscular and feminine? Why does it have to be an either or situation?