By Keegan Hamilton
By Albert Samaha
By Village Voice staff
By Tessa Stuart
By Albert Samaha
By Steve Weinstein
By Devon Maloney
By Tessa Stuart
The veins bulge on her left forearm, sturdy and sinewy as steel cables. Her hard-torquing torso centrifugally sucks her shirt tight against her striated abs. Sweat beads on her taut brow and streams down the tendons tensing in her neck. Martina Navratilova is winding up for a backhand slice that will smack the ball straight out of the picture.
Not so long ago, grown women clipped photos like these out of tennis magazines and tacked them to their walls, thrilled by the unambiguous image of female power that they didn't find in too many other places. Never mind the horrified male columnists who disdained Martina's muscles, warned women away from the weight room as though rescuing damsels from a dungeon, and wildly denounced the thick-thighed, Eastern Bloc dyke who was blasting pretty Chrissy Evert out of her crown, as if a commie tank were rolling over a Barbie doll. Martina's minions embraced the revolutionary force of that pumped-up body, honed only for the court and owned wholly by its inhabitant.
Now, a generation later, triceps are more chic than T-straps, and Martina's might is not only widely admired, it's expected. Images of rippled female athletes, if not as ubiquitous as the emaciated models who still rule our notion of the femme ideal, are now common, normal, no big deal. More and more folks appreciate that when it comes to athletes' bodies, form must follow function. And the cultural ramifications of seeing them are huge. "A certain degree of muscularity has been normalized," says SUNY-Binghamton professor (and competitive power lifter) Leslie Heywood, who has been doing research on 7-to-12-year-old girls' responses to images of women. "The girls have a lot of contempt for the Kate Moss look and they understand that it symbolizes weakness, withdrawal, not having a presence in the world. Show them Gail Devers and their immediate reaction is, 'Cool,' and they understand that she signifies the opposite."
Sure, those male columnists might still go gaga over the glamour of Anna Kournikova and gag on the gutsiness of the Williams sisters. Nonetheless, there Venus and Serena are, gracing a "Got Milk?" ad. Could anything be more wholesome? And even when Amelie Mauresmo got dyke-baited as "half-man" at the Australian Open last year on account of her massive shoulders and punishing volleys, it was her critics, Lindsay Davenport and Martina Hingis, who took the heat from the media. And today, Martina Navratilova is selling Subarus on TV. The mainstream has embraced the Amazon.
Sort of. After all, the mainstream gobbles everything compelling into its maw and sells it back to us reshaped, neatly packaged, and demanding that we buy, buy, buy. Better that along with our high-priced high-tops and four-door sedans we should buy images of female toughness rather than vulnerability. But capitalism, of course, reveals cultural contradictions better than the mirror in the locker room reveals a thickening gut. The increasing acceptance of powerful women's bodies has been matched by a frantic attempt at containment. Yes, buff is beautifulbut only as long as its function is to be gawked at by guys. Just take a look at the two major magazines that claim to be about women's sports, Women's Sports & Fitnessand Sports Illustrated for Women. Mostly they offer tips on how to trim those troubling thighs. "We're living in the best of times and the worst of times," sums up Mary Jo Kane, director of the Tucker Center for Research on Girls & Women in Sport at the University of Minnesota. "We see more images of strong women in action than we've ever seen before. That is a very big change. But the more we see thoseimages, the more we see the same athletes off the court dolled up in prom dressesor in no clothes at all."
Images of female strength as, well, images of strengthare definitely out therein snarky sneaker commercials more than anywhere else. It's a commonplace that advertisements work best by appealing to submerged desires, so getting women to yearn for new Nikes with fast-cutting shots of rowdy, mud-splattered soccer squads or slo-mo close-ups of bruisers bumping shoulders under the hoop makes perfect marketing sense. But when the target consumer is male, or worse, when there's no real product at allother than the raw power and consummate skill of the athletes themselvesa backlash whips into action faster than Brandi Chastain can tear off her shirt. You don't have to be Freudor Andrea Dworkinto understand that David Letterman's infamous gush over the U.S. Women's Soccer Team as "babe city" was not merely a compliment paid to the healthy good looks of the World Cup victors.
It was a desperate bleat for control, a reassertion of the male prerogative to judge women on their appearance and to insist that appearance matters most of all, a recuperation of women's bodies as, first and foremost, objects for men's pleasure, an admission that the team's skill and self-sovereignty scaredhim.
For obvious reasons, many female athletes, along with their promoters and supporters, take great pains to quell their apparent threat to male dominion. They want success and the public embrace that comes with it. Deliberately or no, Chastain titillated the multitudesor at least those with sports columns and showswhen she joyously yanked off that shirt. The astonishing amount of media disputation over her revealing the sort of top that women athletes wear all the time in track and field and other sports was simply absurd. It was as if all those commentators neededto see the gesture as an act of striptease, needed to create it as such through their endless replays of the clip and panting remarks. They either lacked the tools to make legible the image of a charged female body bursting with triumph or they didn't like what they were reading.