These two shots are almost identical; almost the same position, same woman, same skill. Alicia Sacramone is an olympic gymnast chosen to pose for ESPN's Body Issue, an honor that few athletes are granted. This means big bucks, and big exposure for the price of nude or semi nude photographs. The body issue is meant to highlight many athletic and vastly different bodies, from bowlers to hurlers to jockeys. Sure, many people will tune in to the Body Issue just for the naked men and women, but many will look at it as a celebration of athletic achievement. Others will go as far as opposing these photographs by calling them pornographic or oppressive. The real issue isn't the magazine, its the divided ideologies claiming nude photographs of athletic women are either empowering or repressive.
Heywood and Dworkin explore this schism in "Bodies, Babes and the WNBA" and argue for a different viewpoint that meets somewhere in between the ideologies of old school feminists and new age feminists. Photographs have to be put into context, always. The position of the body weighs heavily on its meaning. On page 84, they talk about facial expressions that read as either inviting or assertive and how interpretations are what create meaning. An inviting facial expression or position can be read as "feminine" which translates to oppressive because we have been hardwired to believe so. An assertive one can read as "masculine", which in the case of women can mean lesbian or powerful, depending on who is doing the observation. All of it is subjective, though perhaps learning how to read photographs and how to develop your own understanding of them can be helpful.
The images above are magnificent. They do not offend me or make me turn away. They aren't exactly inviting either. They are performance, not just for the camera, but for the sport. Alicia Sacramone's skill is undeniable, does the fact that she is naked change that? Why does it matter? Some "old school" feminists will say she doesn't have control over her body once she poses for the camera, and that is a hard argument for me to support. She chose to pose, she probably had some control over what her body will look like, and she's not posing out of the ordinary--this pose is her job. It isn't hyper feminized or sexualized. To say that it is, is to say that gymnastics as a sport is hyper feminized or sexualized and those are muddy waters to tread in, my friend.
Another argument against women posing in "sexy" ways, is that they are doing it for the money. That isn't really a problem, except that they are paid way less than men. Most women's sports are underfunded, thus leading them to find endorsements and other means of making money. Perhaps many wouldn't think these women are victims if they were paid equally, because it wouldn't seem like they are doing it out of necessity but because they want to. Either way, gaining exposure is important-- as long as they are willing and in control. Again, it can be argued that they don't control their body but then I'd ask, who does?
I agree with your points, I do believe that often women are positioned in a way to show off their femininity but this only works in the oppressive structure that femininity is framed around. Our society has framed femininity as equating to sex appeal which fails to truly encompass the whole of the feminine body. As the feminine body has only been explored through one lens. ESPN’s body issue should celebrate bodies as fairly as possible, not just creating this obvious undertone of masculinity and femininity through the positions that each are portrayed by. Sports, it seems, hasn’t even reached the cusp of celebrating bodies that identify in a different light than the one that is already set out. Women should be shown in many ways, not just in a sexually appealing way but in ways that market their sports, their bodies and what they love to do.
ReplyDeleteI like how you brought attention to the idea of the problem being the split ideologies! Old school versus new age feminism seems like a hard road to go down. It makes me think of the phrase "Can't we all just get along?!". The reason for that is if there was no grey area and everyone agreed that one thing was oppressive and another was empowering than there would be no controversy. If all feminists could just get along and on the same page, there would be a lot more getting done in the woman's world. Coming together and creating a common understanding with feminist issues, could help us move forward to bigger and better goals. I know this is so unrealistic because it is impossible for everyone to agree and form one opinion and rules but hey, a girl can dream right?
ReplyDeleteI agree that this water is very muddy, and it is so hard to figure out the message and if its oppressive. I think that at many times women pose for things, and though they have a choice, societal pressures and social norms played a great deal into the decision. For this ad though, I think it’s just stunning. I think that it is not necessarily oppressing or empowering her, it is just showing off her extraordinary body. The move she does is impressive, and the way her muscles and ribs and everything looks is simply stunning...and I don’t think it has to do with the fact that she’s a woman....I think it’s mainly because she has a body that can do things many people can’t.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your points and I am conflicted on this issue. On one hand, I view this picture as powerful and portraying the body as a work of art. It does not strike me that she is being oppressed or exposed for the wrong reasons. However, she is a woman and is living in a society where she may feel pressure to pose nude to gain attention. Women in the media are confined to a small box of exposure because they are almost always hyper sexualized. I feel like my response would be completely different if this was a man in the picture. We would not be questioning his strength or his reasons for doing the photograph. I think this shows the double standard within the sports and how the media uses that to portray male and female athletes differently.
ReplyDelete