I really wish I was making that headline up, but unfortunately I'm not. That is one of the headlines on Yahoo. From time to time I'll go on Yahoo and read some of the stupid and pointless articles which they seem to call "news." They obviously have a much broader definition of news than I do. This is one of the headlines for one of their top stories, and I must say, this has to be a low point in journalism, even for Yahoo.
The 'Hottest Olympian' they're referring to is javelin thrower Leryn Franco of Paraguay and she didn't do very well in these Olympic games. In fact, she finished 18th in qualifying and didn't even make the finals in her respective event. I'll repeat that again... 18TH!!!!! Why on earth are we giving coverage to someone who didn't even do well in the qualifying event and who isn't American!? This feeds into the idea that women are valued for their physical appearance (Kim et al., 2007). This woman is very attractive, but she's competing in an environment based on athletic ability, not on physical attractiveness. I have no problem with a journalist mentioning that she's pretty, but I do have a problem with an article being written about her performance only because she is beautiful. Have you ever read an article about someone from another country coming in 18th place in a qualifying event? I know I haven't. This sends the message to young girls that all that matters is your looks. It doesn't matter if you fail or succeed in what you do, as long as you look good doing it then you have value. The Olympics are supposed to be a time when the world joins together to watch athletes from all countries compete athletically. It's not about where you come from or what you look like. It's about striving to be the best athlete you can be and showing the world what you have trained your whole life for. To write stories based solely on the attractiveness of a female athlete isn't just sexist, it's lazy journalism.
With the Summer Olympics underway, it comes as no surprise that all all media outlets have focused their attentions on the events currently transpiring in London. The substantial media hype surrounding this year's summer games has inevitably thrust some recent unresolved issues back into the media spotlight. One such issue, of particular relevance to our class discussions, involves the IOC (Interational Olympic Committee) and it's controversial polices pertaining to biased gender identification and subsequent verification of female athletes.
Not to long ago, during the 2009 Berlin Olympics, a female South African Olympian, named Caster Semenya, fell victim to the accusations and unavoidable media scrutiny resulting from the enforcement of these policies.
The questionable suspicion surrounding the promising young female athlete was not prompted by any deceptive or unethical behavior on her part, but rather unsubstantiated rumors inferring that her unparalleled athleticism, as well as her defining physical features, were "too masculine" to allow her to compete among her fellow female Olympians. Officially, justifications for these inconceivably offensive accusations are attributed to less subjective scientific measures, specifically, an athlete's unique levels of testosterone and androgen receptors. The official rules state that women who have levels of testosterone that are
equal to a man will be prohibited from competing in the Olympic Games
against other women. The IOC, however, does not specify what a normal
level of testosterone is for a woman, nor do they clarify the terms of ineligibility that any subsequent violations might invoke. Supposedly, the true intention of these policies is to ensure the equality of participants, promote fair competition, and circumvent any maliciously deceptive or fraudulent behavior. Apparently, the notion that Semenya's conventionally masculine physical characteristics give her an unfair advantage in competition with her fellow female athletes, threatens the fragile equality of competition afforded by traditional gender divisions.
Below you can see a video clip from one of the many television interviews with Semenya following these traumatic events:
In reading further, I was reminded of issues pertaining to stereotypical gender roles, specifically notions of the double standard, as discussed in the works of both Ward(1995) and Kim et. al.(2007). The Olympic games are known for promoting unity and providing a level playing field upon which the best of the best can compete for international glory. The only real segmentation of competitors occurs along gender lines, justified by claims that these divisions are necessary to protect the best athletes from the female gender from being overlooked in favor of male athletes, less deserving of the recognition. Assuming the athlete was not illegally doping or using performance enhancers of any kind, does it seem fair that any woman whose traditionally masculine characteristics might arguably enhance her athleticism, have to fear disqualification for reasons beyond their control. Doesn't it seem that a rule such as this might defeat the purpose of seperating competitions by gender in the first place? For that matter, would the IOC show equal concern in the event that a male competitor, exhbiting traditionally feminine qualities, might posses an unfair advantage in events valuing that trait, for instances figure skating?
Upon further investigation, I came to realize that this genre of media spectacles is by no means a recent development. Interestingly, Olympic history is littered with similar instances of publicly scrutinized gender discrepancies and alleged sexual discrimination, dating back nearly a half century. For the most part, it appears that female athletes have helplessly endured outspoken public accusations of this nature for almost as long as they've been allowed to compete. For instance, I would imagine that most, if not all of you, are likely familiar with the famous African-American female tennis superstars, Venus and Serena Williams. These undeniably talented twin sister athletes blew spectators minds when they first burst onto the professional tennis scene over a decade ago. The astoundingly athletic and intensely competitive Williams sisters quickly skyrocketed to the the top of the rankings, consistently annihilating challengers on the court with an unrelenting intensity beyond anything the sport had ever seen. Their impressive exhibitions of unprecedented athleticism transcended those of their more traditional fellow female athletes, thrusting them into the media spotlight, as they rose to the top tier of competition. So much so, that during formal competitions, they consistently outperformed and outlasted the majority of opponents, leaving the sisters to compete against one another for first place. These repeated displays of unparalleled physical prowess undoubtedly earned them nominations for the U.S. Olympic Tennis team. Theirs is an inspiring story of dedication and perseverance in the face of adversity; a real life representation of just how much you can achieve with hard work, extreme dedication, and a positive outlook. Unfortunately, as many of us know, even relatively mild media hype surrounding these higher profile individuals inevitably invites public criticism, often exacerbated by unwanted press coverage and potentially negative long-lasting repercussions. Despite their inspiring story, the impressive scope of their accomplishments, and the positive examples they they set as role models, there have been several instances in which even these well respected American female tennis legends still fall prey to the same variety of slanderous accusations and prejudicial sensationalized misrepresentations. This kind of attention can attract a lot of negative attention, the
result of which can be lasting damage to an individuals reputation and
self-esteem.
The IOC began subjecting female athletes to gender tests in the 1960s, with “nude
parades” that were exactly what they sound like: female competitors made
to walk naked before a panel of judges. The IOC later realized,
what’s on the outside doesn’t always match what’s on the inside, so the
committee moved on to chromosome testing. Once it was shown that women
can have a single X chromosome (just as men can have two of them) that
was abandoned as well. Then came SRY gene detection (the gene that
triggers male sex determination), but after the Atlanta games, in which 8
women tested positive for it, and all were cleared for competition,
this method, too, was deemed insufficient. A decade ago, the committee
decided to chuck the testing altogether. But in the wake of Semenya’s
case, and the international scrutiny it prompted, the IOC announced that
it would try, once again, to devise a way to decisively determine what
makes a woman a woman, or in this case what makes a woman not a woman.
-
Update: A short while after writing this post, I actually stumbled upon two articles discussing a similar event in which a male figure skater was actually accused and found guilty of estrogen doping Im hesitant to take these at their word however, as neither come from any widely recognized publication or credible source beknownst to me. Have a look perhaps.
Numerous articles over the past week has commented not only on the skimpiness of beach volleyball bikini bottoms (which, as we discussed today, are the opposite of new, yet remain fascinating to the public for obvious reasons). My favorite is this article, which pokes fun at stock photographers' tendencies to take tons of gratuitous butt shots of female volleyball players by showing other awkward pictures of isolated body parts.
It's not particularly surprising that female Olympians would find themselves sexualized and objectified, because they are taking part in a television spectacle. Other problematic gender portrayals commonly found in the media persist in Olympic coverage as well. This analysis of the 2008 Beijing Olympics reached unsurprising conclusions about the differences in the ways male and female Olympians and commentators were shown on TV. Women won 48% of medals at the Olympics, but received 46.3% of the television coverage, even though the women in diving, beach volleyball, and gymnastics (considered "socially acceptable" for women to play) all received significantly more coverage than their male counterparts. Seventy-five percent of women's coverage was devoted to socially acceptable sports. The study notes that these sports all involve skimpy clothing and no hard contact between players. The study also found that male commentators received significantly more air time than female commentators.
These findings are unsurprising for anyone who knows that numerous television content analyses have found women to be underrepresented, and when they are shown, are depicted to be younger and more sexualized than the men they share the screen with. One could also argue that "non-socially acceptable" sports like fencing and rowing are longer events that are less interesting to watch, and are ignored for the sake of time.
Like every faithful American I have
gone gaga for the summer Olympics and have faithfully kept up with all of the
primetime coverage from the aquatic center to the balance beam.I must admit I’m a huge fan of watching
these incredible athletes representing their countries. The Olympics have been
filled this year with charges of sexism, from commentary by the announcers to
the bikinis worn in beach volleyball, however, beyond the disapproval from many
that women athletes are seen as eye candy or not taken as seriously as their
male counterparts, there is one advertisement that caught my eye and has
nothing to do with skimpy uniforms. For the less avid Olympic viewers, the
commercials during the Olympics rival those of the Super Bowl. They are
carefully crafted and bold. P&G’s Olympic-themed commercials are no
different. Proctor and Gamble, also known as P&G, has released a series of
commercials featuring mothers of Olympic athletes with taglines that thank
mothers. One commercial features a series of short scenes in which a mother is
shown waking up her daughter, driving her to the gymnasium, washing her
leotard, and feeding her breakfast. The daughter is then shown when she is
older finishing her routine during the Olympics and running over to hug her mothers
in the stands. The one that aires on television just features the american mother and daughter, I could only find this extended version but it's the same idea (maybe even more powerful).
Another commercial features various children dressed in Olympic
gear preparing for different events and shots of their mothers anxiously
watching on the sidelines with the tag line, “To their Moms, they will always
be kids. P&G Proud sponsor of Moms.”
Don’t get me wrong, I nearly teared
up the first time I saw this commercial, the exact reaction I’m assuming they
wanted this ad to receive. I think most Americans can relate to the extreme
devotion, sacrifices, and love that our mothers give to us and this commercial
acts almost as a reminder to thank them for everything they do for us. However,
the more times I see this commercial (they play non-stop) the more I begin to
take a more critical view of this campaign. Beyond the initial emotional
reaction I have toward this commercial that makes me want to run back to
Connecticut to hug my mom I have begun to realize the problematic nature these
commercials propose by reinforcing gender norms pertaining to parenting and the
role of mother figures. The media, particularly television, plays a powerful
and influential role in promoting and normalizing gendered images of men and
women in heterosexual romantic relationships (Ivory, Gibson & Ivory). In
these campaigns the mothers are featured in domestic settings such as washing
clothing and cooking breakfast, while any sort of father figure is completely
absent. I’m sorry, did I miss something? Don’t fathers also support their kids?
Don’t they coach, drive their kids to practice, and watch anxiously at the
sidelines of every game? My father has given up countless weekends driving my
brother to hockey tournaments since he was five years old and now pays for him
to go to boarding school to play hockey. My father has been just as dedicated
if not more so, to making my brother’s athletic dreams a reality. I know that I
am not alone in this. Apolo Ohno, who happens to be a
P&G-sponsored-Olympian, was raised by a single father.Yes, that’s right P&G…father. This
campaign seems to be glorifying women by highlighting all of the selfless acts
mothers make for the benefit of their children and thus reinforces the notion
of women as the primary caretakers of the children and household.
While there is no question that
mothers sacrifice so much and that yes, many women do take on the role of
primary caretaker in families, this seems somewhat sexist and limiting in my
opinion. In the same way that the media is criticized for isolating or ignoring
gay and lesbian figures and promoting stereotypes of heterosexuality, these
commercials seem to be reinforcing gender norms within the family by
disregarding fathers in the lives of their children and focusing on the
mothers’ traditional function as care taker of the house and children. These
campaigns are clearly geared toward mothers however, in doing so they alienate
fathers. By ignoring fathers in these ads P&G in my opinion reinforces that
women are the ones who make the real sacrifices for their kids and therefore
deserve the acknowledgement and thanks from P&G. The media is an important
source for information on the rules, norms, and rituals within our culture
(Brown, White, & Nikopoulou). Therefore I don’t believe that the
implications of this campaign regarding reinforcing gender norms should be
dismissedas unimportant or not
influential--after all these commercials are running prime time during the
Olympics…that is one large audience if you ask me.
While
these ads clearly are heartfelt and promote important family values of
supporting kids, I think P&G fell short with their message. I think that
these campaigns should have thanked and acknowledged the enormous commitment
parents make for their children. I can identify the strategy behind targeting
specific demographics however, I believe this campaign would have been just as
effective if not more so by broadening its target audience to parents in
general. Maybe I am being too harsh, and playing devil’s advocate or the
politically correct police. Perhaps it is ok to acknowledge mothers without
acknowledging fathers. Feel free to challenge me; this was just a reaction I
have grown to acquire after looking more closely at this campaign.
In anticipation of today's discussion about sports/gender/sexuality, my roommates and I were recently talking about how hot the Olympians were--I mean, say what you want about how tall the US Men's Gymnasts are but you could serve drinks off of those pectorals (and yeah, I know that's a pretty objectifying comment, but it's also true). Anyway, this prompted us to imagine how crazy things get in the Olympic Village; we wondered how many of those uber-sexy athletes were spending some of their training time under the sheets, if you know what I mean, and one of my roommates said she had seen some crazy statistics somewhere so I did a little searching and found this article on ESPN.com found here. It is 100% worth a read, even if you're just curious about what really goes on after NBC's cameras are shut off, and the numbers are pretty staggering. I'll make a list of the more shocking points:
1. The organizers of the Olympic Games ordered 100,000 condoms especially for the use of the Olympians staying in the Olympic Village.
2. By one Olympian's estimate, 70-75% of the athletes are hooking up with each other.
3. Some athletes, such as the infamous Ryan Lochte and US Sprinter LeShawn Merritt, have essentially said they can't wait to get it on--Merritt: "When I'm done leaving my legacy on the track, I'll make sure London remembers me." Hide yo kids, hide yo wife, London, Merritt is trying to get it in.
4. Once their events are over, athletes will constantly go to clubs and drink in the Olympic Village, which, as we saw in the Sex, Lies, & Alcohol video, can and does lead to giant amounts of sexy time.
5. Many of the athletes interviewed in the article mention the fact that the Village is a breeding ground for this sort of excessive sexual behavior because everyone is so fit and beautiful; as American javelin thrower Breaux Greer puts it, "Even if their face is a 7, their body is a 20."
6. "It's like Vegas. You learn not to ask lots of questions."
7. Another reason that attempts to explain the enormous amount of hooking up is that training takes up an athlete's entire day and subsequently, life. A common feeling is that they have little time to meet anyone, and once they get into the Olympic Village, they are surrounded by people who understand what it's like to be an Olympian and having that connection acts as a catalyst for sexual activity.
I'll let you guys read the article, but I've gathered a few interesting conclusions from this subject. First, most of the athletes seem to be following Ward's definition of recreational sex (1995) since the article mentions a constant flow of different sexual partners in and out of athletes' rooms, as well as mentioning the fact that many of the athletes have excess energy from their highly intensive training, and sex is one way for them to simply blow off steam. However, my last point (#7) suggests a deeper level of feeling to the sex, perhaps falling under Ward's relational sex category (1995) because the connection between athletes is something more than surface-level attraction; it is a way to relate to one other, or rather because they can relate to each other they are more likely to crave sex. Another interesting thing to consider is the seemingly central role that alcohol plays in the Olympic Village. High alcohol consumption is rampant and this will lead to more sexual activity, as alcohol always seems to do; the partying, "let loose" sort of lifestyle in the Olympic Village is compared to a college campus and the first year of college--a place where partying can lead to sexual activity but sometimes with negative consequences. It makes me wonder--if the Olympic Village is like a college campus with excess partying, do negative things that occur at college parties occur in the Village as well? Sexual assault, attempted rape, alcohol poisoning, date rape drugs? Would I be surprised if they did happen and were completely covered up? These are representatives of our countries, after all; if Ryan Lochte, for instance, tried to rape a gymnast from Austria or something I can't imagine that we would hear about it for the sake of our patriotic pride. The athletes talk about how they can do whatever they want inside the Village and outside just by flashing their medals; how many other things can they get away with due to their celebrity status?
Finally, I find it extremely interesting that the Olympians value each other for their 0% body-fat bodies. This is almost taking objectification to the extreme, but everyone does it to each other so what's the harm? Well, in the case of the Olympians, perhaps the constant surroundings of perfect bodies gives them a skewed sense of what constitutes a normal human physique. And, as an application of these perceptions much like the application of the promiscuous female stereotype in Ferguson et al, objectifying one other as much as the Olympians seem to do could lead all of them (which is about 10,000 people) to turn those attitudes to the outside world and view everyone they encounter with a highly unrealistic expectation as to what they will look like and an assumption that it's okay to treat men and women as objects.
On a sidenote, the Olympians are pretty scrumptious and the comments on their bodies/faces by many viewers of the Olympics could act as priming, again like in the Ferguson et al study; if a guy spends hours watching female gymnastics and talking about how hot all of the girls are and what great bodies they have--basically, objectifying the girls--what's to stop him from carrying this critical eye into the rest of his day and applying it to every woman he sees? Just something to think about.
I really wish I was making that headline up, but unfortunately I'm not. That is one of the headlines on Yahoo. From time to time I'll go on Yahoo and read some of the stupid and pointless articles which they seem to call "news." They obviously have a much broader definition of news than I do. This is one of the headlines for one of their top stories, and I must say, this has to be a low point in journalism, even for Yahoo.
