Sister Act VI: Venus and Serena Williams at Indian Wells: “sincere fictions” and white racism

I am not certain that racism was the only motivator at Indian Wells, nor gender bias. I do not think that Dr. Spencer believes this either; I think that she was extrapolating information about racism through this incident in order to shed light on an undercurrent of racism that still exists in the tennis world. I believe the same thing; this incident does shed light on the underbelly of the human persona. However, if I was at Indian Wells, I would have been booing right along with the rest of the crowd. I would have been upset that I had paid to watch the second to best match of the tournament and then been denied that opportunity. An injury default? Sure, that is part of the game. Defaulting because you are related? Not so much. I would have booed regardless of the player's race, gender, age, religion, or even hair color. It is just anti-competitive and reeks of an ulterior motive on the Williams' part. I realize that it might appear that I am taking part in the "sincere fictions" that Dr. Spencer wrote of (Spencer, 2004), but I actually been in this situation before.

I have been at wrestling tournaments where two teammates have declined to wrestle in order to advance one athlete. At those moments, I have booed along with everybody else. The one athlete advances without tiring themselves out, creating an almost unfair advantage, especially in a grueling tournament.

That does not, in the slightest, condone the racial slurs or threats against the family. I do not believe that it even condones booing the entrance of the Venus and her father to watch the finals match. My booing would have stopped after the announcement of the default and I would have moved on from there. To continue with it would not have been classy.

To borrow a line from Ron Burgundy, "Stay classy, Indian Wells."

The commodified 23, or, Michael Jordan as text

I grew up in the western suburbs of Chicago from 1991-2000, during the height of the Michael Jordan era. Unfortunately, I was not raised as a fan of professional sports and therefore never saw him play. Actually, when I think about it, I do not remember even watching the games on TV! Yet, even with this level of removal from the world of sports, I still knew (quite vividly) who Michael Jordon was and what his number was. Everybody did! E. Armstrong (1996) agrees, "It is impossible to underestimate MJ's (Michael Jordan's) global significance and the attendant global presence of his UN (uniform number) 23" (p. 326). I also think that everybody today, in 2011, would know who he is. I bet that it would be impossible to find someone, over the age of 10, that has never heard of him or does not know that 23 was the number he wore.

As Michael Jordan is one of, if not THE, biggest athletes of our time, an author would be well served to view him and his life as text. This would especially be the case if that author was looking for a text that would reflect society's ideals and values regarding its professional athletes. The amount of press Michael received is well documented (Armstrong, 1996), and therefore there is a plethora of available sources.

As such, it was interesting to read through this article and see all the quotes from the "scandal" that occurred when MJ unretired to play in uniform number 45, and then later unretired the number 23 to play in that. Not much has changed! Our athletes are still superheroes whose every move is questioned and magnified for the public to judge. Because of this, I think the best figures to study as text would be athletes and actors/actresses. The athletes that would yield the most information in our day would be LeBron James, Tiger Woods and Michael Vick.

 

Reading the Muscular Body, cont.

So after class, I have something that I was thinking about that I would like to share. I think it is unfair to look at these magazines as examples of negative hegemonic influences in our society. I don't think they are a main, or even secondary, perpetuator of negative body images in our culture. They are way to over the top and unrealistic to make people feel guilty about their bodies. In my mind they are manuals. If I opened the magazine and saw flabby individuals lifting tiny amounts of weight, I would not pay any credence to the advice I offered. The advertisements play to the audience that is most likely to be reading the magazine - men that are looking to improve their bodies. Therefore, it makes sense that most of the advertisements are of a nature that will help those individuals reach their goals.

The only concession I can make is that the sexual enhancement ads most definitely enforce hegemonic masculinity. There really is not any excuse for those, it's pretty obvious that the advertisers are trying desperately to appeal a target audience of a pretty creepy individuals.

However, those ads are secondary. Of the magazine I searched through, 72% are for dietary supplements that help provide the body with the nutrients it needs to grow. How the ads are constructed is just marketing; those companies emphasize transformation and make the reader feel inferior simply to sell product. Pretty much every ad agency is guilty of these same crimes.

I was walking through a store the other day and picked up a magazine entitled "Truckin," just to see if it contained pictures full of normal trucks. It did not. It was full of crazy trucks, cars, and other things. All the pictures in there were of automobiles that no average everyday person would own, much less drive to work. It was not full of the typical trucks that we see on the road; it was full of tricked out, bright, flashy trucks. There might be articles in that magazine about normal trucks, but the ads and pictures were of something completely unrealistic to the average person. Just like the pictures of the men in Muscle and Fitness or Flex.

Reading the muscular body: A critical decoding of advertisements in Flex Magazine

No. In a one word summer of on my feelings of this article I say, "No." In my humble opinion, I respectfully disagree with the premise of this article. Causation does not equal correlation. The authors look at advertisements and assume that because they are depicted a certain way it must be men trying to fight women's emancipation. White and Gillett (1994) state that the "popularity of bodywork practices are symptomatic of a trend in our culture seeking to reestablish an ideology of gender difference in the face of emancipatory forces" (p. 19). Really? Granted, this could be ONE reason for the advertisements, but there are numerous other possibilities. This is especially the case when you view these magazines as a vehicle for men (and in some cases women) looking to get the most out of their bodies.

Personally, the magazines represent what is possible through hard work and dedication. The men in the majority of the advertisements are insanely huge, and I have no real hope of ever looking like them; it is not realistic to for me to think that. However, the athletes in pictures are examples of what the human body could be and therefor I trust that they possess the information I need to make myself a little better. The only thing that the advertisements mean to me is that the magazine will present a distinct bias within its articles so as not to upset the sponsors.

To White and Gillett (1994), "bodybuilding allows men the false gratification of seeing themselves as the self-made, objectified body-commodities they constitute. Because real power is located in economic and political structures, bodybuilding constrains the construction of identity to the pursuit of self-as-commodity" (p. 35). Their bias just drips from the pages. They obviously look down on men that put any effort into their bodies and seem to be justifying their disdain. It is no wonder that they assume that the advertisements carry such a negative cultural connotation.

Real women watch football: Gender differences in the consumption of the NFL Super Bowl broadcast

If I was asked to find an article that described Super Bowl parties I have attended in the past, I would choose, "Real women watch football: Gender differences in the consumption of the NFL Super Bowl broadcast" (Clark & Gladden, 2009). Every Super Bowl party I have ever been to involved people behaving and enjoying the game in much the same way this article says the research supports.

Pre-game, national anthem, and kickoff has everybody's rapt attention. As soon as the offense takes the field, the majority of the women in the room tune out or start talking. The men, on the other hand, focus intently on the game. At least that is how the article would have it seem. I would agree with that except for one important point. It seems to me that you could replace the words "men or women" with "avid fan or passive fan." The article attempted to address this by evaluating avid female fans and passive female fans, but only discussed the data with reference to men and women. In the end, I do not think that gender is the ultimate determinate, but the level of interest in the sport of football.

I specifically remember one year, after the game was over and everybody had gone home, that my wife said to me, "Next year, lets only invite people that want to actually watch the game." She was annoyed that most of the people in the room had not really cared what happened in the game itself. So both the men and women did not care, most of the people were there for the social aspect. Unfortunately, that is not something that can be avoided during Super Bowl parties. So, to get around that this year, I'm turning up the surround sound J.

Anyway, time for me to head down to watch the game itself! I'm rooting for the lesser of two evils, soooo go Pack!

The Super Bowl and U.S. solipsism

I did not enjoy reading this article by Martin and Reeves, The Super Bowl and U.S. solipsism. It stereotypes Americans as ignorant, self-aggrandizing, chest thumping buffoons. From the beginning, the bias is heavily slanted against our country. It seems that they are looking to support their theory that we are proud idiots, and I found it offensive.

Okay, so our media hypes the Super Bowl as "the greatest one-day sporting event around" (Martin & Reeves, 2001, p. 214). I would argue that they do that in order to get more ratings. I think that we as a country like to build things up to make the event that much more special. I think any country would do the same. I would be interested to see what you would find if you stopped 10 people on the street and asked them that same question. "Is the Super Bowl the biggest international sporting event of the year?" I would be surprised if three of those people agreed that it was. Those three would probably also think that the capitol of Illinois is Chicago (it's Springfield ;-)

If you had stopped me (prior to reading this article) and asked me this question, I would have said, "No way." I would have put the World Cup, the Olympics, and like 3 other sports ahead of it. I know football is not an international phenomenon, but that does not mean it cannot be a huge spectacle here. I actually wish we pushed more international sports as a country so that we would stand a better chance in international competitions.

I am not sure why people look down us for enjoying football. These authors seem to do it because they have taken offense to snubs against soccer. Just because I do not like the same sport you do does not mean you have to make it personal.