Anna Grzebian is a LPGA tour member, and is part of the Wilhelmina 7.
They are being referred to as the “Wilhelmina 7” or the “W7”. Seven golfers from the LPGA are being dawned in bikinis, lingerie and evening gowns. The modeling agency Wilhelmina Artist Management is representing them, and working to seek sponsorship and endorsement deals for the women as a group and as individuals. But I don’t care to dwell too much on the W7. The sexualization and feminization of female athletes is nothing new, but the issue generates a number of viewpoints and controversies.
On one side, you have those in full favor of sexing up female athletes—they have hot bods, and it would be a disservice not to show them off. On the other hand, you have those in full opposition—it’s degrading, and these women are losing credibility as serious athletes. And you have some on the middle of the fence arguing that it’s the athlete’s individual choice, end of story.
Sure it’s an individual choice, and there is no reason to single out any individual athlete for their decision to pose or not to pose in lingerie. But there are many more female athletes than males choosing to market themselves and being marketed as both athletes and swim suit models, which suggests that this matter is more complex than one of free choice. It would be naïve not to acknowledge the gender disparities and double standard that is playing out not only in the “W7” case, but in the realm of sports in general.
I’m not saying that sexy is sexist; nor am I saying that bikinis, evening gowns and lingerie are symbols of women’s oppression. What I take issue with is the lack of media coverage sports women receive, and when they do get coverage the media too often sexualizes and objectifies their bodies. While male athletes receive attention primarily for their athletic ability and merit, female athletes have to demonstrate both athletic and supermodel abilities.
Photographs of male athletes often depict them in action, while females are more often shown in still poses, and wearing revealing outfits or nothing at all, according to The Boston Women’s Health Collective. Try google-ing images of Danika Patrick, Serena Williams or Venus Williams. According to sports media researcher Margaret Duncan, Sports Illustrated’s photographs of swimsuit models can hardly be differentiated from its photographs of female athletes—both are often positioned sexually and submissively.
It is not the amount of nudity itself that degrades female athletes; but the disproportionate emphasis on female athletes’ physical (and heterosexual) beauty rather than their athletic abilities and strength gives off the message that a woman’s physical appearance is of more value than her strength and abilities
Gender disparities in sports are well and present, and go beyond the sexualized depiction of female athletes. But perhaps the root cause of it all is a societal discomfort with strong women, and a stubborn adherence to a gender binary. There seems to be such a panicky need to prove that female athletes, despite their strength and ability, are still 100% women and feminine.
This need is what drives the W7 marketing campaign. Dieter Esch from Wilhelmina’s modeling agency says that he hopes to “show the world [that] there are sexy, athletic women who can play [sports]”. The LA Times wrote this about Esch:
“When Dieter Esch began looking at the players on the LPGA Tour, he quickly figured out that something was missing. He sensed they always appeared out of place . . . swinging nine-irons, hitting out of bunkers, putting cross-handed on the green…”
Esch and the public are not yet comfortable with seeing women playing hard and playing well. The “something” that Esch referred to as missing from the LPGA players was the bikinis, evening gowns and lingerie. When hetero men see the below picture of golfer Kim Hall in a bikini, chances are, they will feel more turned on than threatened by the fact that she can beat them at a game of golf.
We’re used to and more comfortable with seeing women in bikinis; not with swinging nine-irons. It’s as if women have to compensate for their strength by downplaying their athletic ability and up-playing their sexual appeal and femininity. And to be feminine—as it is commonly understood—is to be passive, submissive and indecisive; not aggressive, independent or competitive. Femininity is not in congruity with athleticism. And the expectation for women to conform to feminine stereotypes deters women’s sports participation. In order to create a fair playing field not only in sports but in all sectors, we all have to loosen our grip on this notion of a masculine-feminine dichotomy.
Sports remains as a conservative force in contemporary gender relations and politics. “Few areas of contemporary society construct dualism of gender and sexuality and maintain heterosexual male dominance more vigorously than sports,” according to sociologist Stephan Walk. Yet sports also has the potential to act as a key political and transformative tool in the deconstruction of restrictive notions of femininity and sexuality. Considering the command sports media has over society’s attention and values; sports media plays a crucial make-or-break role in the effort to establish gender equity and fairness.
If sports media would have the honesty and integrity to provide female athletes with more coverage and depict them as they are (as opposed to being carefully made-up and strategically posed), society’s expectation and view of women may be dramatically altered. For one, greater visibility of female athletes would promote greater female sports participation. The word ‘tomboy’ might become obsolete as we will no longer see sporty and energetic girls as aberrant, but just the norm. We might never again hear ‘you play like a girl’ being used as an insult, but rather as the highest degree of praise.