By Jared Chausow
By Katie Toth
By Elizabeth Flock
By Albert Samaha
By Anna Merlan
By Jon Campbell
By Jon Campbell
By Albert Samaha
They're everywhere, these proud offspring of Title IXstrong, competitive, and practically naked. Not content with risqué poses for a slew of national magazines, Olympic high jumper Amy Acuff organized her fellow track athletes for a seminude calendar. Star swimmer Jenny Thompson stood topless for a glowing Sports Illustrated profile. Hell, a whole bunch of Australian women's teams have posed for their own naughty calendars (take that, Brandi Chastain!).
Like rock-star nymphets lining up for a Rolling Stone cover shoot, today's women athletes seem awfully willing to disrobe for the publicand today's media seem only too eager to urge them on.
"It's utterly predictable," says Mary Jo Kane, director of the Tucker Center for Research on Girls & Women in Sport at the University of Minnesota. "We are at a crossroads in terms of women's sports. It's the best of times and it's the worst of times."
Kane says what few others seem willing to consider: Far from empowering and liberating a whole new generation of young jocks, as their supporters allege, the cheesecake photos are part of an active backlash against women's successes on and off the playing field.
As women push forward, Kane argues, societal institutions push back. "If you want to resist that movement," she says, "you have to up the ante in terms of how you're going to trivialize and marginalize them." And what better way to trivialize than to remind us that no matter what their accomplishments, women are first and foremost sexual objects? Their abs may be rippled, their quadriceps nicely defined, but the photos remind us that these are good ol' American girls before anything elsein the male gaze, in the men's magazines. Nothing threatening, nothing, ahem, abnormal, about them.
"There are just a lot of men there, including, I'm sure, in the newsroom, who just kind of resent women's success," says Linda Steiner, associate professor and chair of the department of journalism and media studies at Rutgers University. "And so to sexualize her and sort of treat her as a pinup is a way of cutting women down to size."
The women who've posed, and their supporters, argue that the pictures are part of a revolution in women's sports. They say that the photos aren't mostly about sex, they're mostly about strength and confidence. They parry with the non sequitur, emphasizing the intelligence and independent thought of the bare-naked ladies. And, surprise surprise, some say that critics are a bunch of moralistic, uptight, you guessed it, feminists. "This is not a calendar of bimbos," Acuff has repeatedly said. "These are intelligent, world-class athletes. One of them is a Rhodes scholar." Acuff hasn't since explained the correlationhasn't she ever heard of smart women, foolish choices?but others have echoed her contention. In a Washington Post column defending Thompson's pose, sportswriter Sally Jenkins argued that Thompson is "a 27-year-old of serious intellect, a Stanford graduate on her way to medical school." She also took critics to task as "sports prudes and creaking, old-school feminists."
"I'm proud of my body and the work I've done to get it like this," Thompson has said, doing her best Chastain impersonation. Certainly, Thompson's body with sinew instead of siliconeis different from that of the typical SI swimsuit model. Her supporters have argued persuasively that there's something refreshing about the idea of young girls seeing a healthy female form in nearly all its glory. Fair enough. Of course, Thompson wasn't posing in a girls' magazine. She took her shirt off for a publication that still claims to be about sports. When the sports media run sexualized photos, they remind readers once again that no matter how good her game, a woman athlete is, thank God, a woman after allthere for the objectifying.
And when athletes willingly pose? They remind readers, and reassure advertisers, that they're as straight and mainstream as they come. For if Thompson didn't take it off for a teen magazine, she wasn't exactly posing in The Advocate, either. Societal homophobia, Kane says, plays a huge role. "If you're a female athlete or you're somebody who's trying to promote a female athlete and you're concerned that they might have the 'wrong' image, the easiest way to establish their so-called heterosexuality or their normalcy is to take their clothes off."
A decade ago it was enough to just feminize female athletes. Sports Illustrated gave us Steffi Graf in a glamorous dress; a buzz was generated around Flo-Jo's fingernails. But times have changed. "You've got to increase the stakes in terms of the backlash," Kane says. "You move from putting her in an evening gown to taking her evening gown off."
"Let's not kid ourselves," adds Kane. "These poses have nothing to do with women as athletes and everything to do with women as sexual objects. Who benefits from that kind of portrayal?"
And that's just it. In the end, the argument over girlie photos isn't just an academic exercise about self-esteem or sex. Despite the heady proclamations regarding this bold new era in women's sports, these are tenuous times. A year after the frenzy of the Women's World Cup, misinformed resistance to Title IX rages on, and the WNBA can't spring for private planes, or respectable salaries, or a decent playoff structure, for its players. Women tennis pros make less than the guys do, and girls' sports teams have to struggle for equal playing time and facility access. And, of course, the very same media organizations that can't get enough of naked athletes can't seem to cover themso to speakwhen they're clothed.