"Jason Whitlock brings his edgy and thought-provoking style to FOXSports.com"
Actually what he brings is ignorance and poor writing. Just days after Serena Williams won her third Wimbledon championship and 11th major title overall, Jason Whitlock decided to write this article on how much better she could be if she had a "reduction in glut, a little less butt". The article is full of cheap shots directed towards her weight and her ass but doesn't manage to offer any evidentuary support for her being out of shape other than thats what it looks like to him.
He also believes that all the complaining about Wimbeldon putting the more attracive women on center court instead of the best players is whininng "disingenuous, politically correct bull crap". It is Serena's fault howeverthat despite she is the second ranked player in the world she doesn't always play on center court, she just doesn't try to be attractive. "Serena only has herself to blame. God gave Serena everything, including drop-dead looks. She's chosen to smother some of it in an unsightly layer of thick, muscled blubber, a byproduct of her unwillingness to commit to a training regimen and diet that would have her at the top of her game year-round."
He goes on to say that "She could break the glass ceiling for female athletes and become the transcendent superstar who connects globally." Right, so in order to break the glass ceiling she needs to be thinner and more attractive. She shouldnt be herself, she should be what fat, middle aged sports writers tell her she should be so they can lust after her "onion butt". (For the definition of onion butt, see the article)
This article infuriated me because it is honest. This is what a lot of people, particularly men, actually believe. Women are born to be judged by their looks and success only comes from being attractive. I do not know what Serena's training regime is, but looking at this:
and this:
she does not appear to be out of shape, but her body type is just bigger and stronger than most women, which I would think might be advantageous when you are trying to hit a ball hard. Her strength is one of the characteristics that make her successful and not a woman with an "unsightly layer of thick, muscled blubber". The woman has won 11 titles and is one of the most recognized female athletes in the world. And then he compares her to Paris Hilton??
It is disheartening to read this dribble and even more so when you read some of the brainless comments. You don't see male athletes, partiularly ones that are ranked #2 in the world, being crudely criticisized for eating or for having a large muscular body ays after winning a grand slam title. Jack assess like this seem to see people in a very narrow category of what is acceptable and desireable and despite the fact that Serena has been very successful, that success will always be overrided by her physical appearance and the fact that she doesn't fit into the right mold.
And people wonder why women have so many body issues.
12 comments:
so, i watched the women's doubles final (part of it) at wimbledon, and i'll agree with whitlock that she isn't in tip-top shape. at different points of her career she has been in much leaner, stronger, fitter shape, and that has nothing to do with attractiveness. he is right that she has underachieved by not keeping herself in the best shape possible. she could have won many more titles by now.
frankly, i'm a little surprised that a work out fanatic doesn't see that an athlete who doesn't take the best care of her body isn't achieving to her potential.
as for sex selling on center court, he acknowledges that. and, talks about sex selling sport cuts both ways. that doesn't make it fair, or equal, but he's honest about it. and he says that he thinks serena has drop deal looks. she should be on center court because her game deserves it, and, using the bbc's and all england club's formula she should be on center court because she's attractive...when she chooses to be.
as for the hilton comment, that seems harsh. he doesn't even really qualify it well. just seems wierd.
I dont know what her workout routine is and I dont know what her diet is. I do know that there are athletes that may not be physically pefect specimens but they are still great athletes. She is strong and a lot of her strength comes from her size. A lot of baseball players do not look like they are in the best shape they could possibly be in either but there aren't very many articles written about them saying they should work out harder and step up their game because they arent living up to their full potential.
What I do know is that she just fairly esily won a championship tournament and there was no congrats or good job from this guy but rude commentary on her appearance. Perhaps if he didnt taint this article with insults like "unsightly layer of thick, muscled blubber" and was more professional with his analysis he wouldnt be so offenseive but he is clearly sexualizing her or he wouldnt say things like "And when she's in shape, she's every bit as sexy as Beyonce." That is what we do to athletes, females in particular because if you are a phenomoenal male athlete you can get away with not being very attractive but if you are a phenomenal female athlete you have to be good and atractive and to just accept that that is ok and hide behind that that is just how life is, is not right. Life is like that because we allow it to be.
There is certainly more pressure for women athletes to conform to the conventional standards of beauty. Not just looks but it’s also about heterosexual femininity.
I really think that if that this article was written differently I wouldn't be as offended by it because yes, in order to be the best athlete you have to be in the best shape you can be in. If he said she seemed to be out of breath when running around the court or that her serve wasn't as strong as it has been etc., then to me that is a legitimate critique of her performance. However he does not say one sentence about her performance but disparages her body and her appearance and that is a huge difference to me. He needs to substantiate his critique by discussing her performance on the court, which he never does.
we also have to consider that this is an editorial piece, and not a match report. he's a talking head, paid to stir the pot, and give opinion. he's done that here, and i'd say done it well (there were like 35 pages of comments!).
i wouldn't say that male athletes get it as bad, but they face the same issue. who gets endorsements? the attractive males. the super fit. cecil fielder used to mash homers, but he was a fat dude and was criticized for it. and, he wasn't pulling down ads. instead, guys like macgwire and sosa were posterboys.
even in sports, like soccer, where everyone is super fit, the more "attractive" stars get the ads. watch soccer ads and you see beckham, cristiano ronaldo, messi, robin van persie, all fit, attractive men. search the internets for franck ribery ads. i think he's done 1, yet he's just as legit of a talent as any of those other guys.
You are right, he is paid to get people fired up and he does a good job of it, I know I have posted about this writer before as well. Personally I would feel some sort of responsibility to post well thought out and substantiated articles, but thats just me.
And I also agree with you that in general in all aspects of life, athleteic or not, being attractive is a huge asset for success. I don't really like that but it is true. And yes women in general are more highly scrutinized for their looks than men are.
I still don't like this guy though and whether Serena is in excellent shape or just pretty good shape, she is always a damn good tennis player.
I maybe off base here but I thought that Serena body is often idolized "more urban magz". So she hasn't conformed to the Euro Standard of body perfection. I thinks that gives her a niche in the market place. She seems to get a ton of ad deals maybe because most athletic companies see her appeal to a specific type of consumer. Honestly this guys comments about Serena's body just enforce the idea that everyone must conform to "conventional standards of beauty" (aka White-Euro)to be successful
Okay so I guess I should have read the article first. After reading it I want to delete my first comment because the guy is not implying that her look is too urban (aka black).
monti,
i'd also point out for everyone that the writer is black, likes women with perfect onion butts or whatever, and thinks is on par with beyonce when she's fit.
And just to further clarify, he actually prefers a stuffed onion over an oozing pumpkin. And according to him a stuffed onion is a booty so round and tight that it brings tears to your eyes.
I guess I learned something new from reading this article!
did you read whitlock's latest on mcnair?
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9777174/Don%27t-be-so-quick-to-make-McNair-a-hero
No I havent but I will.
Jezebel also had a short article on the dichotomy between women athletes needing to find a balance between seism and homophobia:
http://jezebel.com/5309141/sex-appeal-doesnt-sell-womens-sports-just-sex
Well, he is right about this:
"Too many men think financial success is their primary and most important contribution to a relationship with their kids, wives and/or girlfriends. A grown woman has the right to settle for that. Children shouldn't have to settle for anything less than their father's very best effort."
That article as a whole though makes me really uncomfortable. I hate hearing about the proliferation of men who cheat (or women for that matter). It makes me sad that so many people do this that it isn't really big deal. Although "A grown woman has the right to settle for that" is an oversimplification of that situation.
He definitely has a distinct and poloarizing style of writing. I do like that he writes brutually honestly and doesnt do the pc thing, but I dont always agree with what he is saying.
Post a Comment