Well, since I have lately been an abysmal failure at posting recaps, I thought I'd try something different today. Instead of frustrating myself by being unable to push through an eight-hour or more writing project, I'm just going to give some quick thoughts on a couple of current issues in roller derby. I have a feeling that some of the things I have to say here will upset some people, but it's not like I've never been widely reviled before. (I was in school to become a lawyer, after all.)
(Best John McLaughlin voice) Issue One: What to make of the "20 Derby Girls to turn you on" and "20 Roller Derby Girls who will turn you on to the Sport" articles?
First, let me be very clear that the original (now deleted) post was an absolute piece of crap. It was merely a bunch of photos (unattributed ones at that) pulled from random places and accompanied by banal and pathetic captions. I'm not sure how widespread the site's viewership is, but I hope it is minimal. I doubt that I've said anything controversial thus far.
Now, here's where I may get some disagreement. I am not opposed to the purported aim of that post, but merely to the execution. It's time for me to come out of the closet and proudly be who I truly am. I have been a devoted fan of roller derby since I first saw a bout, and I am truly drawn to the athleticism and strategy involved. But you already knew that. You can't understand the full measure of my love for the sport, however, without one additional revelation: I like women. I mean, really, really like women. I like attractive women more than I do baseball, football, roller derby, and Murray Head's "One Night in Bangkok." I am pretty sure that I like them slightly more than I do water and air. I'm fairly certain that I was born this way.
It should not be surprising, then, to observe that most of my favorite skaters are not only very talented, but also very easy on the eyes. I admit that I have a mental ranking of the hottest skaters on some of my favorite teams (Cincy, Circle City, Windy, Denver, etc.). I don't believe in the slightest that highlighting the physical attractiveness of the athletes detracts from the public taking the sport seriously. In fact, I believe that it is a legitimate avenue to bring a more widespread fan base to the sport. After all, thousands of women drooling over Tom Brady have not managed to tarnish the NFL. Women who come to the ballpark to see David Wright or sit at the Jake in the "Grady's Ladies" section have grown to be true and more knowledgeable baseball fans.
It seems that roller derby has a split personality when it comes to this issue. The same folks who cheer the inclusion of a naked Suzy Hotrod in ESPN's magazine get offended when others "marginalize" the sport by paying attention to the "sex(y) sells" angle. There is a reason that old-school roller derby types referred to nice breasts as "tickets." As long as the fans who come to ogle are treated to a great athletic competition, the sport comes out ahead. I will never claim to be an expert on "empowerment" or women's issues in general, but I do not understand why anyone is offended to be thought attractive. Maybe it's just that I'm not much to look at, but I would be more than happy to be eyed amorously once in a while. So, I think that a well done "20 Sexiest Derby Girls" article in a mainstream publication or website would be a plus.
Enter the "Derby Deeds" website, which quickly moved to right the situation by providing a list of 20 skaters who would turn someone on to the sport of roller derby. Again, I found the intention better than the execution. First and foremost, is there a single person reading that website who is not already into roller derby? Beyond that, however, I do have some issues with the list. First, allow me to give due credit. The writers highlighted some excellent and underrated skaters (Begeman, Mouse, Four Closer, etc.). Also, many of the skaters shown were of the "clean-cut" variety. Here's where I get into trouble again, but I am not a fan of extensive tattoos, especially on women. I am fine with every person's right to self-expression and body decoration, but it just does nothing for me to see large, garish tattoos covering every surface. Disregarding for a moment my earlier point that non-derby fans (or future derby fans, as I like to think of them) don't read Derby Deeds, these are the images of the sport that will appeal to a wider, more mainstream audience. I have no problems rooting for the less traditional-looking athlete, in any sport, nor in appreciating their talents. Except for the NBA's collection of thugs, though, every major sport's most popular and marketable athletes are the clean-cut types. You don't see Aaron Rodgers, Derek Jeter, or Sidney Crosby sporting the tattoo sleeves and multiple visible piercings.
Since my praise for Derby Deeds devolved into a rant, there are a few more problems with the list. First, it's extremely LA-centric. Seriously, three different LA Derby Dolls, and another from Angel City? Add in the other California teams, and they're nearing half of the entire list. Also, some of the skaters were profiled by those who have rarely seen them skate. Would it be too much to solicit testimonials from more knowledgeable sources? The guy who wrote K Lethal's blurb has seen her once? While I certainly agree that she is immensely talented and aggressive, I had to laugh when he claimed that one of her great strengths was avoiding fouls. K Lethal does many things extremely well, but avoiding the box while wearing the star is not one of them. The inclusion of skaters in face paint also detracts from the list. What serious, mainstream sport features top athletes in full-face white paint? Finally, I know that any finite list will omit many great skaters, but no list of the top 20 anything in roller derby is complete without Jackie Daniels. If anyone saw her performance at NC Regionals this year and didn't come away a derby fan, I have no hope for that person's soul.
Issue Two: Pros and cons of the World Cup.
Many of my points are in response to those made by "Commissioner" Jerry Seltzer and commenters on his blog, so you might want to look at that here first. I have not had the chance to watch any of the action thus far, but there have been complaints that the venue is not "World Cup" caliber. I have not personally seen it. I agree that if at all possible, tournaments of this magnitude should be held in excellent arenas. The current realities of the sport, however, mean that such opportunities will not always exist. Simply look at the sites for some of the 2012 WFTDA Playoffs. The North Central Region will bout in Chicago? Indy? Cincinnati? Milwaukee? Cleveland? St. Louis? No, try the sporting mecca of Niagara Falls, more than 250 miles from the nearest team that made the 2011 NC field. Of course, I'd love to see the World Cup played in Chicago, Seattle, or another city with a top roller derby venue. But, I'd rather the skaters have this opportunity in a subpar arena than nowhere at all.
One major problem is the competitiveness of the matchups. When Team USA's Heather Juska posted about the World Cup groupings, I stated that I would take the USA minus 300 points against either of its two competitors. The team's first bout resulted in a 377-8 drubbing of New Zealand. The closest bout of day one was an 83-point victory by Australia over Germany. My patriotic fervor aside, it's very difficult to get excited about a tournament in which every single contest is a blowout. I admit that I don't have the answer to this problem. The Commish proposed a system in which the top six seeds compete for three of the four semifinal positions and the bottom seven seeds compete for the final berth. While that would provide at least some decent early-round matchups, I'd be very upset to be on the fourth-best team and miss making the semis in favor of a team that may be nowhere near the same quality. Aside from the gap between the USA and the rest of the field, I think the differences will narrow over the next few years. I'd be in favor of another World Cup in four years. In the meantime, I'd love to see an annual four-team All-Star round robin in December among the top skaters in each WFTDA region.
Now, for a few "quick hits." A commenter doesn't think the organizers of the tournament should be allowed to call it the "World Cup," instead reserving that title for the soccer and rugby versions. Another thinks the event is diminished because Japan was excluded over compliance issues. First, I have a major problem with an organization as riddled with corruption as FIFA getting to declare the world champion of anything. Second, I believe that any tournament whose champion can legitimately make a claim to the title of best team in the world in its sport can rightfully be called the World Championhip. People take baseball, football, and other US-based sports to task for bestowing the title of "world champions." Can anyone legitimately argue that the best football (in the American sense of the word) team in any other country could beat the worst team in the NFL? Could even the national teams of Japan or Cuba beat the Yankees, Rangers, or Cardinals in a best-of-seven? No and no. Since no non-participating nation has a team that could rival the eventual champion USA, I have no problem with this being a "World Cup." As for the Japan argument, international competitions have rules and standards. If a country fails to comply, be it this event, the Olympics, or anything in between, that team should not be allowed to participate.
Well, that was a bit longer than expected, but it was nice to break through the writer's block. I hope that I haven't offended too many. I also hope that you all love me for my mind and my writing, but I wouldn't quibble if the ladies wanted to see me as a sex object as well.
Note: Below is the abridged first few paragraphs of my full response to Mike's post. The entire version is available here: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/18461720/spectator_sports_and_gender_based_objectification.htm
ReplyDeleteMike's post highlights several important issues that women's roller derby faces as a grass roots amateur sport. Overall, it discusses the identity crises women's roller derby leagues experience as they strive to recruit and engage participants, sponsorships, fans, and media coverage. More specifically, this post takes stances on: a) the net effects of women's roller derby being sexualized; and b) the net effects that a player's image can have on marshalling or repelling potential fans and players to the sport.
Mike and I often ruminate back and forth on sports issues; sometimes we agree and sometimes we differ. As a skater, I value the attention and insight that he lavishes on roller derby, and particularly the way that he thoughtfully discusses roller derby together with other sports, both professional and amateur.
In this post, four points that I took home were:
1) Highlighting the physical attractiveness of the athletes does not detract from the public taking the sport seriously or becoming devoted fans.
2) Roller derby itself has a split personality when it comes to this emphasis on appearance.
3) Players adopting more clean-cut mages with less hooplah (e.g., face paint) would improve chances for growing the sport of women's roller derby.
4) While the Derby Deeds post was a valiant effort to reanchor the conversation started by the article "20 Roller Derby Girls to Turn You on," many of the the comments about the players lacked substance.
I want to introduce some additional points about the challenges women's roller derby players and female athletes in general face as competitors in sports. Principally, my points concern: 1) the player-audience interplay involved in spectator sports, and 2) how gender-based objectification and pigeonholing becomes amplified within that environment.
Even though Ms. Bombtrack's entire post is not printed here, I will refer to it liberally, so please take a moment to follow her link above.
ReplyDeleteI must begin by stating the obvious: I have never been a female athlete. I cannot possibly speak with the authority of life experience on many of these topics. I speak only as a sports fan and former athlete.
I agree that female athletes are objectified, as are male athletes, and just about every random man and woman on the street. We are all labelled according to our appearance. I do believe, however, that there is a significant distinction in the objectification of the sexes in terms of athletics.. Women tend to be judged by attributes such as pretty faces, and (let's be honest) T&A. Men tend to be judged more by "measurables," meaning height, weight, length of arms, and such. I could not cite the height nor weight of any female athlete, while for a time, I thought my first name was "Six-three" and my middle name was "260." So, I do believe that women are viewed in a more sexual way. A major contributing factor is the way (straight) women judge other women and (straight) men judge other men, both of which tend to follow the dichotomy described above. As an example, a skater posted the link to the Dirty Deeds post on her Facebook feed today. A (male) friend commented that she could make the list, and one of Bombtrack's teammates replied "Your tits could make the list."
What I do not accept, however, is the jump from "objectification" to "oppression." Unless it is backed by the power to directly impact another's circumstances, no one's opinion of another's physical attributes can constitute oppression. I can only speak from my experience, but my assessment of the beauty of athletes has had no discernable impact on anyone involved. I don't walk up to skaters after a bout and tell them how sexy they are; I discuss performance and my observations about the action. Likewise, when I write about roller derby, it is with a focus on the events on the track.
In terms of how conscious women (as opposed to men) are of being viewed, I have no basis for judgment, so I accept Bombtrack's premise. I can only assume that this causes no small measure of stress for many women, and I do greatly appreciate the insight. I would like to know if those viewed favorably in terms of looks feel a similar impact to that felt by those who receive less positive messages.
Finally, I must take issue with the examples given in terms of baseball and football players who are heavily tattooed. When asked to think of a baseball player, no one blurts out "Scott Spezio." Josh Hamilton's extensive ink came about during his drug-addled years, and I'm quite dubious that he would make the same decisions in his current state. Brandon Marshall and Vince Young are better examples of underachievers than of popular stars. I have never seen a commercial featuring any of those four players. Non-inked (or at least moderately-inked) male athletes come across as more wholesome and more appealing to a larger demographic, whether jusified in each individual case or not. This is one area in which I see no true difference between male and female athletes. (I do grant that baseball and football uniforms cover more skin, thereby making tats less visible on those players than on roller derby skaters.) The only reason it bothers me more on women than on men is that I am attracted to women.
I too appreciate the chance to have honest discussions about substantial issues such as these. I hope that no skater has ever felt that I addressed her or commented on her in a demening way. If I may make a plea to all of the attractive skaters out there: Don't hate me because I think you're beautiful.
According to you:
ReplyDelete1) talking about how skaters are hot ≠ harm the sport.
2) talking about hot skaters' tattoos or face paint = harm the sport.
I also drew one other conclusion from your article: "I was in school to become a lawyer" = you didn't finish law school.
I came across this article after Bombtrack had posted it on Facebook. The bulk of it resides in a world of extremes, with very little room for balance or middle ground. It felt like many of the points that were attempted to be made come from a view point that groups many people and things together under one banner that have very little in common. Things such as sexuality, body modification, and the thoughts/biases of “Mainstream America” are all filled with multiple subcultures and opinions within them and cannot be viewed as absolute truths.
ReplyDeleteThe main focus of the article is on the physical attractiveness of female skaters and moves into the writer’s personal definition and boundaries of “objectification” and “oppression.” The author states in his rebuttal to Bombtrack's comment that objectification is something that both men and women are subjected to on a daily basis, but that he cannot accept that emphasis on female athletes' looks over performance can be slotted into the category of oppression. So why would skaters be offended by being ranked or judged by their physical attractiveness?
My answer to that question is roller derby is a unique sport because women resurrected it and is one of the few options they have to play a full contact sport. Attractiveness is not a major factor/stat by which we rank our male athletes in sports, so why would we do so for female athletes? Generally when we talk about women being “hot,” that physical trait has a way of engulfing many other more important traits (personality, intelligence, humor, athletic ability, etc.). I would argue that this is one of the reasons that roller derby girls do not like being judged by their looks because it unfortunately overshadows many more important things. The article’s point about Tom Brady falls short here because while he is a handsome man, NFL pundits and fans are more apt to talk about his Super Bowl rings and career stats first, his character second, and his modeling a far third. If being pretty was a key factor in who plays in the NFL and gets air time on pregame shows then Matt Lienart would be a Pro Bowler and not languishing as a bust 1st round draft pick.
An example of “hotness” outweighing all other factors comes from this article’s perceived double standard of the nude Suzy Hotrod photo for ESPN magazine as it is taken out of context here. A naked person does not automatically equal porn or even sexiness, as the American media’s repressive views of sexuality and nudity would have you believe. She was photographed naked for a sports magazine that was highlighting the best bodies in all of sports. This was noted in the sidebar that ran with the photo, which talked about her career highlights. The emphasis was on muscles and not T and A. When I first looked at the photo my initial thought was “dude, the definition of her obliques are insane.” I didn’t look at it in a sexual manner. I viewed it the same way I would if I was drawing a nude model in a figure drawing class, clinically and stripped of sexuality.
I was also confused by the dismissive and condemning views of the modified athlete/female. The skaters who were picked for the Derby Deeds list were not based off of physical appearance but by talent and personality. The point of “Except for the NBA's collection of thugs, though, every major sport's most popular and marketable athletes are the clean-cut types. You don't see Aaron Rodgers, Derek Jeter, or Sidney Crosby sporting the tattoo sleeves and multiple visible piercings” is flawed on multiple levels. 1. I am confused by the phrase “the NBA’s collection of thugs?” Are they stealing things from people? Knocking over stores? Do we not see off the field/court crimes in other professional and amateur sports? 2. The 3 examples the author picked are among the best athletes of their chosen sport worldwide. It doesn’t matter whether they had tattoos or not; they would still be top-level athletes and used for endorsements. 3. Chuck Liddell was the face of the UFC for years, and the man has tattoos on his head. If it wasn’t for tattooed fighters like him, Rampage Jackson, Wanderlei Silva, and Brock Lesnar and their fighting ability that drew in millions of fans, the UFC would not have moved from Spike to Fox, one of the largest television networks in the world, nor reign as the undisputed king of pay per view.
ReplyDeleteIt’s like the late Al Davis used to say, “Just win, baby” which could also be used as the catchphrase for capitalism. It doesn’t matter what an athlete looks like; it’s about whether or not they perform. Case in point: Bearded, tattooed, spandex tuxedo-wearing San Francisco Giants reliever Brian Wilson, the man who is now endorsing Taco Bell, is about as far as you can get from the traditional athlete in terms of looks and attitude.
The times and the public perception of body modification continues to become a more accepted part of our culture, as what was once taboo has now become part of the mainstream courtesy of television shows and magazines on newsstands nationwide. The stereotype of the scary tattooed biker and the drunken sailor began to erode in the ’90s when a new batch of tattoo artists mixed with artistic knowledge, technology, and industrial innovation came together. The website http://www.vanishingtattoo.com/tattoo_facts.htm states “Thirty-six percent of those ages 18 to 25, and 40 percent of those ages 26 to 40, have at least one tattoo, according to a fall 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center. (see pdf of tattoo poll numbers)” This leads me to predict that we as a society are going to see more modified human beings on the planet as time goes on as well as on the track, field, rink, and maybe even in the White House.
In the end, we are all judged by our physical appearance on some level, but I don’t believe that it has be the main thing by which we are defined. While that should be true in life, it should be even more so in sport, where athletes should not be judged by how they look in their uniforms but by how they play for their teams. As the old saying goes, “It’s what’s on the inside that counts,” and in the case of sports, it also depends on your speed, hand-eye coordination, and lateral movement.
-Tank, editor/writer www.rollerderbyinsidetrack.com
McNulty's comment gets one out of three correct.
ReplyDelete#1 - Correct
#2 - Incorrect. I have no problem with talking about tattoos or face paint as it pertains to the sport. The point is that to reach the widest audience, these things can turn many people off.
#3 - Incorrect. I did finish law school but chose not to practice law.
As for the two comments posted by Tank, these raise far more substantial issues. I find many of the points sound and reasonable. Others, I do not find compelling.
ReplyDeleteAmidst work, a banquet, and volunteer obligations, this is the first time I have been home and awake for more than 30 minutes this weekend. As such, I hope you will all bear with a delay in my full response until tomorrow night or Tuesday.
Now, I'll move on to the comments by Tank. They contain many valid points. In many cases, I was unsure if a certain contention was meant to stand on its own, or if it was meant to rebut a position I took. Nonetheless, I will address the major issues raised therein.
ReplyDeleteAs to the point that my views did not take into account the intricacies and subcultures within groups, I accept that. I wrote a short post, giving my views on two current issues in a sport, not a sociology thesis. By virtue of word count alone, I did resort to generalizations.
Moving on to the main thrust of the first comment, its author claims that judgments of "hotness" for women tend to overshadow other, substantive aspects of their personalities and abilities. I agree that this can be true, but that it depends entirely on the point of view of the observer. Similarly, the attractiveness of a male athlete, or that of a non-athlete of either sex, can overwhelm other aspects of their performance. If the observer/commentator makes appearance the primary focus, this outcome is quite likely. See: "Dating Tips from Sexy NFL Stars" (http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/dating-advice/dating-tips-from-football-players), "Eye Candy: Sexy NFL Players 2011" (http://photos.essence.com/galleries/eye_candy_sexy_nfl_players_2011), or "10 Sexiest NFL Players" (http://thestir.cafemom.com/entertainment/109467/10_sexiest_nfl_players), to name a few.
For a vast majority of commentators in men's and women's sports, however, the attractiveness of the athletes ranges from a complete non-issue to a side topic. In these cases, it does not overshadow the other characteristics. These observers fit the view of Tom Brady's, as described by Tank in his comment, focusing on performance first, and looks in a complementary way. Those who read my recaps or discuss the sport with me can attest that performance is the top issue on my agenda, and that personality is cited far more often than are looks. I consistently maintain that any sports fan who sees women's roller derby will be drawn to the athleticism and strategy. If a fan walks into the door looking to see pretty girls smash into each other and walks out a true fan of the sport, have not the sport and its competitors gained something of value? Going a step further, if the same potential fan walks in and leaves thinking "some of those girls were really hot," does that diminish anything? The worst case is that someone bought a ticket to a bout who otherwise wouldn't have.
In terms of the Suzy Hotrod/ESPN issue, I take the points at face value. I have never been an artist, and the shape of someone's obliques is not something that catches my attention. To argue that the issue is merely about athletic shapes and non-sexual rings a bit hollow to me, but I accept that some viewers may see it that way.
The main assertion of the second comment is my post takes a dismissive and condemning view of a "modified" athlete. The author first takes issue with my characterization of NBA players as "thugs." In 2005, an author named Jeff Benedict did a study in which he attempted to obtain records checks on all 417 U.S.-born NBA players. He received results on a statistically-significant 177 of them, and 40 percent had been arrested and or indicted for serious offenses (felonies and misdemeanors involving violence, weapons, drugs, and altercations with law enforcement officers). This number does not include lesser offenses, such as public intoxication, disturbing the peace, or traffic violations. Certainly, some of these players were acquitted, and I'm willing to wager that many others used money and/or celebrity status to plead out to lesser charges. Still, when 40% of the players have arrests for serious offenses, I find the label "thugs" justifiable. In contrast, the second-highest rate belonged to the NFL, at 21%. Source: "Out of Bounds: Inside the NBA's Culture of Rape, Violence, and Crime," by Jeff Benedict.)
ReplyDeleteThe second contention is that I selected as examples some of the best athletes in their sports, and that those men would be popular and marketable even with tattoos. There is no rebuttal to this, as it involves a hypothetical that cannot be tested. Finally, the comment uses the example of heavily decorated fighters in the UFC to show that their ink has not limited the growth of their sport. I grant that their sport has grown rapidly, but I believe that is more a function of the devotion and bloodlust of a narrower segment of society, namely young men. The same demographic propelled boxing to great heights as the original "king of pay-per-view." UFC is simply a more violent extension of boxing. It is also relevant to note that MMA fighters are rarely, if ever, used to promote anything outside of that demographic. The example of Brian Wilson's Taco Bell commercials also falls short. In the commercials, only one relatively small tattoo is visible. My post takes no view of beards, attitudes, nor clothing.
The statistics cited in the comment seem to imply that my views are indiscriminate with regard to tattoos. It cites percentages of people in certain age groups who have at least one tattoo. The views I expressed are limited to much more copious ink. Nonetheless, I certainly believe the statistics cited, and I agree that tattoos in general are becoming more mainstream. People of all types and professions have tattoos. The extensive and visible ones, however, are not nearly as widespread nor accepted.
Finally, I must agree completely with Tank's assertion that physical appearance should not be the main thing that defines anyone. I have never argued to the contrary. As for roller derby athletes, my opinion is as it always has been: they are true athletes and sportswomen whose public personas are rightfully and predominantly defined by their strength, speed, and skill.
I do wish to thank Tank for his thoughtful commentary on the issue and for his contributions to the discussion.