29 June, 2009 | Leave a Comment
It’s Wimbledon, which means that male players get attention for their skills and female players get attention for their looks. Same old story. According to this report in the Daily Mail, the most attractive female players are being scheduled to play on centre court, even if they are very low-ranked and virtually unheard of, whereas top players like Serena Williams, who are apparently considered unattractive, are playing in less high-profile spots. The Daily Mail isn’t always a reliable source, but they’re backed up by the Guardian on this. Said Williams: “Well, I’m happy to have gotten my match over and to have won. I always play on Court No2 — it’s not a court for Roger [Federer], but it’s definitely a court for me.” Not surprisingly, this court allocation by means of attractiveness is not applied to the male players.
In theory, professional sports should be great for women’s status and self-esteem, not just for the players but for the spectators. Sports allow us to be respected for what our bodies can do, rather than what they look like – a rare situation for women. Sports should be an area where lookism has no place, but again and again, from the Olympics to Wimbledon, we see that women can never be free from objectification and downright demeaning treatment. When it comes to women at Wimbledon, skill and athleticism take a back seat to whether a woman is deemed f–kable or not.
Anglofille said @ 6:38 pm | feminism | 5 Comments
- Comments RSS
-
Kristin Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 5:31 amI don’t know how it is that I’m shocked by this story, but I am. Revolting.
-
Ken Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 3:44 pmI don’t follow the pro tennis tour, so I can’t boycott it.
This has been going on for years in women’s tennis. A number of very good looking women have been promoted despite lack of accomplishment in the big time.
This has also happened, to a lesser extent, on the womens’ golf tour. The world economic slump is brutally squeezing the LPGA. Tournaments are being cancelled. Many of the players are now part timers. I would expect exploitation of the marginal players to increase
-
It is revolting, I agree.
Ken, I will excuse you from the boycott, but just this once.
-
Lucette Says:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:17 pmIf I was into tennis, I would rather see Serena Williams – especially if I had to put down hard earned cash for the tickets.
Glad that they do not apply this standard to curling! People who follow curling are looking for skill!
Ok, there was the American curlers who put out a calender as a fund raiser (ok, just the women’s team). I remember them interviewing Dordi Nordby about it. She figured that it was disgusting because only one of the pictures had anything to do with curling (a strategically placed curling rock). And then the young reporter asked her if she would ever pose for such a calender (the look on her face).
Strange that the the US male curling team did not feel the need for such a fund raiser.
Strange that neither the male or female Canadian curling teams felt such a need.
I am still pissed off that when women play that there are no skimply clad male cheerleaders – what is good for the goose is good for the gander – or, at least, I think I should be pissed off about that!
PS. Should note that in the second last Liberal Leadership race, two of the candidates for leadership posed without their clothes AFTER announcing their intentions to run. Both male. One for a calender fundraiser for prostrate cancer and the other (Bob Rae) on a prime time TV comedy show.
And speaking of nudity, what do you know about David Suzuki?
-
Ken Says:
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:06 amMy wife is ignoring NBC’s Wimbledon coverage this week. This weekend we will both ignore the championship matches. Rose will watch RAI. She loves Italian coverage of American events.
