Newsflash: Female Athletes

The month of March is mostly closely associated in sports with college basketball and the NCAA tournament, aptly named “March Madness.” Sports fans across the country fill out mock brackets and the college games dominate ESPN headlines. Almost all of this media attention is usually paid to the men’s tournament, however the back to back undefeated seasons of the University of Connecticut women’s team, as well as the arrival of six-foot eight-inch Baylor freshmen Britney Griner, has brought added publicity to the women’s tournament. Women’s basketball garners far less attention than the men’s game presumably because female players are usually of “normal” stature and are not considered to be in the same athletic stratosphere as male players. Fans love to awe over six-foot eight-inch players such as LeBron James who can not only dunk from the free-throw line but can also handle the basketball with uncanny strength and speed for his size. This used to be far more appealing to the casual basketball fan than a five-foot six-inch girl who dominates women’s basketball with a nice three-point shot. The recent arrival of Griner has not only changed that mindset, but also brings us to a discussion of perceived beauty in sports across the genders. Britney Griner and Tina Charles (the six-foot four-inch center on Connecticut) question traditional female attractiveness and are forcing people to recognize a new type of women.

            The ESPN article on Tina Charles outlines her early childhood and the realization of her unusual height. The article describes Charles’ mother, Angella Holgate, taking her four-year-old daughter to the doctor and being told that she was going to grow to be six-foot five-inches tall. Holgate admits that she immediately beginning weeping and was concerned with the social consequences of Tina being such a tall girl. At the time, she did not even think of the possibility of her daughter becoming a professional athlete.

            What would Holgate’s reaction be if she were hearing this news about her son? It’s probably safe to say that it would have been quite the contrary. Many parents from urban neighborhoods (Charles is from Jamaica, NY) probably would have geared their sons directly into sports and would have little concern over ensuing social problems.

Holgate’s concerns, however, are definitely legitimate in our current society. Our culture places an extreme emphasis on normality, and women above six-feet certainly qualify outside of those norms. Britney Griner has had to deal with these gender stereotypes her whole life as a six-foot eight-inch girl. Aside from her height, Griner is also knowledgeable in automotive mechanics and has an affinity for military strategy. These traits naturally ostracized Griner and gave her the label of being a “tomboy.” For girls such as Charles and Griner, athletics is a natural realm because women who break traditional stereotypes of muscularity and size are embraced and celebrated in such an environment. This gives them a sense of belonging and chance for notable achievement; however, gender stereotypes on sexual attractiveness portray these women in a much less positive light.

Ariel Levy points out that American culture pair’s female attractiveness with thin, dainty, and feminine women. Our class discussions on the fashion industry have certainly supported such stereotypes. Athletics, however, promote strength and competiveness, which is considered highly masculine. Levy explains that for male athletes, their competitions and athletic prowess match up with their perceived attractiveness, so they do not have to deal with such issues in their personal life. Also, male athletes are praised for their performances on the court, but there is minimal concern or potential backlash over their appearance. This is far from the case with female athletes. Levy asserts that for male athletes, sexiness and athletics are mutually inclusive, but for female athletes they are mutually exclusive. Rather, female athletes often feel compelled to assert their sexiness so that they are not stereotyped as unattractive women. Levy points out, “the [female] athletes had to be taken out of context, the purposeful eyes-on-the-prize stare you see on the field had to be replaced with coquettish lash-batting, the fast-moving legs had to be splayed apart” (page 44). She exemplifies this position by referring to Olympic swimming champions Amanda Beard and Haley Clark, who posed in Playboy in 2004.

In a similar nature, Serena Williams was often criticized for her masculine muscles and forceful style of play until she posed scantily, thus showing her “feminine” side. Fellow tennis player Anna Kournikova, however, has achieved much notoriety and acclaim for her looks, which has increased her fan base and gives her matches’ heightened attendance, despite the fact that Kournikova has achieved minimal success in professional tennis. Clearly, our society (rooted in Levy’s notion of raunch culture) places sexiness at the apex of female success and pressures many female athletes to portray themselves in a more “feminine” and provocative manner. The fact that top models earn significantly more money than top WNBA players eludes to our society’s preference for sexy women over athletic ones.

While our society unfortunately forces female athletes to display a sense of attractiveness that male athletes are not subject to, the acceptance of Serena Williams as an attractive women, despite her “manly” figure, shows a loosening of the closely defined gender stereotypes. The acceptance and portrayal of Williams’ figure has led to an acceptance of women who are not thin and dainty to be considered beautiful as well. The New York Times article contains claims by model casting agents that Britney Griner is conventionally beautiful in ordinary women’s clothing but that it is difficult to notice when Griner is in a Baylor jersey and basketball shorts. This type of claim is unfortunately why female athletes feel they need to show their feminine side off the court. However, it is also a commentary on the restrictiveness of female sexual stereotypes and proves why they should be expanded. If people feel athletes like Griner, Williams, Beard, and Clark are attractive off the court, why are they so criticized for their appearance on the court? The answer is reflected in Levy’s claim that female athleticism and sexiness is mutually exclusive. Levy blames these athletes for playing into American raunch culture, but the blame should really be placed on society as a whole. Surely, athletes like Beard and Clark relented into Levy’s notion of raunch culture, but the after effect of their decision should not have been their mere acceptance as sexy women, but also expanded society’s perception of female athletes in general. If those cases broke the stereotype that female athletes can be sexy, why do we continue to perceive female athletes as “manly” until they prove otherwise? We would like to hope that such contradictions to female stereotypes would have expanded or changed those stereotypes but that has yet to be seen on a large scale.

Britney Griner “long ago embraced the role of being the one who took an expectation and flipped it.” Maybe she will lead our society to widen its perceptions of female beauty. If that happens, mothers like Angella Holgate will embrace the news of their daughter growing to be over six feet, rather than worrying about the social repercussions. 

ESPN article on Griner