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.
One aspect of "reading sport critically" is that there can be multiple readings. Likewise, readers can accept, reject or negotiate those readings. Did you ever watch shows where movie critics gave thumbs up or thumbs down about a movie? Sometimes if there were two critics (e.g., Siskel and Ebert), they might not even agree with each other. In a way, that is what cultural critics of sport do. They provide potential readings, often informed by various theoretical ideas. I definitely agree with you that causation and correlation are not the same thing.
ReplyDelete