I instantly felt anger rise up in me. Why should the term “lady” offend, you ask? Because it connotes the image of a Southern belle sipping mint juleps, who might, at any minute, experience a fainting spell. It reeks of “meek”, “quiet”, and “gentle”.
Sports are about action, aggression, competition (if not with someone else than at least with yourself or the clock.) Sports are about taking control of your body and pushing your limits. Instead, what we women get are advertising and media executives who, when they’re not ignoring us and our athletic achievements, continue to sexualize and infantilize us.
There's no denying we continue to live in a world that systematically undervalues women's participation in sports, and deems it unworthy of equal attention, funding and support, but to see it displayed that blatantly and in such a nonchalant way irks me. No female ad executive working at Rogers saw anything wrong with this?
In 1992, while Sports Illustrated devoted most of its coverage to Andre Agassi, the few paragraphs touching on the women’s championship focused not on the games themselves but on the grunting of player Monica Seles.
So, 20 years later, what’s changed? Nothing. We’re spending as much time (if not more) talking about Serena’s choice of tennis attire, than we do her backhand. Sports Illustrated hardly ever runs a cover with a female athlete, yet it never fails to run a Swimsuit Issue. Because, after all, nothing says sports like a bunch of skinny models in bikinis!
“On the playing surface of the NBA and the NFL, women have been institutionalized as trinkets and accoutrements to the main show of brawn and the triumph of the muscle. The relationship between a touchdown and a shot of sculptured pom-pom girls […] is part of the environment.” (Rhodes, New York Times).
Rogers' message? Enjoy the ladies, but focus on the real athletes. Come for the opening act, but stay for the real deal.
Rita Friedman in her book “Beauty Bound” touches upon this. “Cheerleaders provide an entertaining foreground for the serious business taking place on the playing field beyond. They are a colourful and anonymous chorus line […] conveying the underlining message that women have a useful decorative place just outside of center court, cheering males on to victory.” We’ve been relegated to supporting roles…
So, 20 years later, what’s changed? Nothing. We’re spending as much time (if not more) talking about Serena’s choice of tennis attire, than we do her backhand. -
Title IX of the Education Amendment Act in the U.S. guarantees equal opportunity in athletics for women by requiring athletic departments to spend proportionally as much on women’s programs as it does on men’s. But simply because something is enacted, doesn’t mean it’s enforced. U.S. schools repeatedly violate the Title IX clause. Women’s athletic programs repeatedly continue to be viewed by college administrators as headaches and financial drains. Right here in Canada a number of universities have been found guilty of institutionalized sexism and attitudes die hard.
A friend of mine (who once played varsity soccer, is still in excellent physical shape and currently plays in a co-ed soccer league) had one male player say to her: "If a girl is forced to play the entire game, she might get tired and then hurt herself." A woman is biologically built to pop out babies, but a 90-min soccer game might finish her off?
Make no mistake; sexism today may be more subtle, but it’s just as pernicious. In some ways, popular myths and preconceptions of femininity and how they relate (or usually don’t) to the athletic arena, continue to do more damage to women’s potential in sports than any piece of legislation or lack of funding could ever possibly do. Rogers should know better… and if they don’t, it’s up to us to tell them so.
We recently learned that, following numerous complaints, Rogers has changed its advertisement and Tennis Canada has issued a public apology
