When I read that Olympic swimmer Amanda Beard was going to pose in Playboy, I rolled my eyes. Every feminist alarm in my body went off, and I immediately started asking questions like, “Did Peyton Manning pose nude in Playgirl after he won the Super Bowl?” Of course not. There’s a double standard that exists when it comes to how male and female athletes are expected to promote themselves, but I’m going to save that soap box for another day.
Instead Beard’s posing made me think of something else, an issue many athletes have either embraced heartily or railed against mightily, and that’s the issue of role models.
Whenever an athlete gets called on the carpet for an infraction, inevitably a reporter will ask him or her about being a role model. The answer usually touches upon how it’s up to the parents to set examples for children, not to some unknown athletic star who gets paid mega-millions for playing a kids’ game. There’s some truth in that statement, but I don’t agree with it.
Here’s a message to the athletes out there: you’re not a role model because you’re an athlete; you’re a role model because you’re an adult.
Just the other day, I was playing in a rec softball game when I swore. Then I realized that my teammate’s little girl was within earshot and immediately felt terrible for having uttered a profanity. Am I her role model? No. But as an adult, should I set a good example? Definitely.
The United States was molded on the principle of rugged individualism, and we live by that motto today. Do whatever you can to get ahead and live your American dream. It’s an amazing concept, an ideology that we take for granted because there are so many other people in other parts of the world who don’t have that luxury. But I fall back on the same adage I’ve quoted before, “To whom much is given, much is expected.”
Most of us only have to worry about setting an example for our children or the children of those closest to us, but for those athletes who are paid handsomely to play and compete, then it is their responsibility to give back, to set the example, to try to be as upstanding as possible because kids are watching, and as visible adults, that is the healthy burden they are paid to bear.
Amanda Beard is being a rugged individualist by choosing to pose in Playboy. It will get her exposure which will probably lead to endorsements before and after the Olympics next year. She’s living her life and doing what she can to get ahead. She should be applauded for pursuing the American Dream.
But on the other hand, do I think Amanda Beard is setting a good example by posing in Playboy? No, I don’t. She’s fortunate enough to be competing at one of the highest levels, and whether it cramps her style or not, she should think about how this decision affects the state of women’s sports and the young people who look up to her. What message does this send to a little girl who’s just starting to swim laps or a teenager who just found out she’s getting a scholarship to swim in college? The message is that a woman needs to use her body to get ahead, which runs counter to every reason that girls should get involved in sports in the first place. Women have more to offer than the outside package, but when a prominent female athlete decides she’s going to use her body for gain, she detracts from the progress we’ve made since Title IX.
Of course, many others before Beard have done the same thing, so I don’t meant to place all of the blame on her, and we can point to myriad male athletes who have made headlines for much greater breaches, but all of these issues strike at the heart of the role model issue.
Athletes can still live their lives in the American tradition, but the next time they are asked how their actions can be reconciled with their status as role models, maybe they should just pause and think about it before trying to shirk responsibility.
4 comments:
At least Playboy is considered by many to be more artistic than many...
Looking from the other side, the human form is a beautiful thing, especially when it belongs to an athlete. Nude photographs are not neccessarily sexual photographs and really can be artistic. It will be acutely clear to those who view her photos that she is an athlete, as I'm sure the strength of her form will be obvious (think muscular in a feminine way).
If she wants to put herself "out there" in a less mainstream artform, it is her right. If done well, nude (or even partially nude) photos are art, it just so happens she will be making very good money from a men's magazine.
We can get angry that women are not given the high dollar commercial endorsements like male athletes, or we can embrace the power females have. A woman embracing her form (and sexuality) in a tasteful manner can be empowering in its own right.
How different is it than the guys who model Calvin Klein underwear? Or model in an Abercrombie & Fitch catalogue? While I understand the idea that she's modeling her body for men, all that we end up doing as women is saying that it's ok to show off your body if it's within what we deem to be acceptable parameters. Where else do women have a chance to show off their bodies, if they're proud of them? Certainly not Vogue. So, to argue that modeling for Playboy is making her a bad role model may not be the best argument because what we then are saying is that modeling for Playboy, being proud to flaunt your body, is a bad thing. And aren't we trying to teach girls pride in their bodies? Let's be honest, who other than men and lesbians are going to truly appreciate a naked female body? Would it be less upsetting and more role-model oriented if she modeled nude for a lesbian magazine? If so, why? Therein lies the question.
Hi Sumner,
I've been enjoying your hersportspov blog, though I think that the last entry you posted was kind of essentialist. I mean, I totally get your point, but on the other hand, why automatically deem role models posing nude detrimental to the psyches of their young fans? First of all, female atheletes have had to overcome societal pressure to be stick thin just like the rest of us. They, however, have chosen to embrace what has for so long been considered a less feminine body, muscular etc. Maybe posing nude can be viewed as a type of resistance. Also, women should own their sexuality. They should express it as they see fit. We can't assume that female atheletes pose nude for any one reason in particular, including exploitative ones. Anyway, I'd rather have the young women I know be provided with varying examples of female beauty. So what if they're naked. What's wrong with nudity? I also don't want the young women I know being coerced into shunning their sexuality, like I was. That's a perfect example of patriarchal oppression-- making women feel guilty and slutty for openly expressing themselves sexually or for choosing to be seen in a sexual way. Posing nude is not bad for all women, or for feminism. Third wave feminist theorists actually recognize that the attitudes of second wave feminists of the 1970s (specifically regarding their oppostiton to posing nude, stripping, and S&M) were as oppressive as the paradigms against which they were railing. Not only do I like the idea of athletes posing nude, but I want a fatty playmate of the year, a butch lesbian, and a male to female tranny.
Yankees suck. Go Sox.
Oh, and I found this article interesting: http://www.gmax.co.za/look05/03/30-sportscomplex.html
...read the artical mentioned by kim...interesting. I think it brings attention to the fact that those in the US seem to be more prudish in general when it comes to nudity and sexuality. Anyhow, I didn't even consider the nude male athlete and discrimination from that point of view, so thanks for the article. I'm so used to male athletes being able cash in on things like shoe advertisements, I did't think about it from the nudity aspect. I do see how there may be a double-standard there...
Post a Comment