After reading the article "America's Sweetheart and Czech-Mate" by Dr. Nancy Spencer (2003), I came away with several outstanding pieces of information that I could not shake from my mind. The first, during Dr. Spencer's description of the ESPN documentary series of the 50 most prominent athletes of the 20th Century, was small but indicative of the time-period. Of the 50 most prominent athletes during the 20th century, 8% were women and 3% were horses (Spencer, 2003, p. 20). That, to me, came as a shock and almost seemed like a joke. How closed-minded must those evaluators have been to only come up with 4 women on a list of 50?
Another major point made in this article was the masculine/feminine portrayal of the tennis players, Navratilova and Evert. Navratilova was viewed as "foreign.. masculine.. villain" by the media, while Evert was described as "feminine.. heterosexual.. and America's Sweetheart." From my own interpretation of what was read, Navratilova was portrayed negatively by the media because she played a much more aggressive style of tennis than what the norm for female tennis players of that era. She was a dominant athlete, described also as muscular, which meant she was masculine and thus not as attractive and made people feel "uncomfortable"(Spencer, 2003, p. 23). Evert, in comparison, is described in a manner that "men love watching her, women love watching her, and young girls want to be like her," according to Dr. Spencer. That is a significant contrast to what was said about the "intimidating" Navratilova.
I found this article interesting specifically because I don't have a great basis of knowledge in tennis, and especially of women's tennis prior to Venus and Serena Williams. Reading about the rivalry, and friendship, between Navratilova and Evert was an interesting insight in to what the sport was like in the 70's and 80's. Also, seeing the drastic difference in Navratilova being described as a villain because of her muscularity and aggression and what we see now in the uber-aggressive Williams sisters being the faces of the sport for the better part of two decades is eye-opening. Would the Williams sisters be regarded as villains along with Navratilova, or would they have created a new niche of superstars in the sport even in that era?
Joey Durant
This is such a "Catch 22" in our society today. As a former athlete and person of interest in all of athletics, I grew up idolizing the best athletes in each sport. I was one that looked up to the masculine, vein popping, huge athlete that was going to rip apart their competition. At some point in our society, it became wrong for female athletes to have the same attributes. As talked about above, Navratilova was looked down upon, even though she was an unbelievably fit athlete. This is an interesting concept to me. How is it so appealing to one gender, but not the other. Did people that were in tuned to athletics feel "uncomfortable" about Navratilova even though she was a world class athlete?
ReplyDeleteJoey-
ReplyDeleteLike you, I do not have much knowledge when it comes to tennis. But with this reading, and our class discussion I found this topic very interesting. It is interesting, and quiet amusing, when you look at the difference that these two female athletes are viewed as. I question what the reason was for such a difference in the portrayals? Was it the fact that Evert was American? Was it the difference in the style of plays? Or was it the muscular build of Navratilova versus Evert's good looks? I agree with you that it was Navratilova's style of play that made the biggest difference in the portrayals. But let's say that Navratilova was American, and Evert was Czech. Would these portrayals be the same?
Hi Joey,
ReplyDeleteGreat comment! I also do not have much knowledge when it comes to tennis. Quite frankly I have little to none, but I do enjoy watching! (I just may not be sure as to what's going on). Something that is pointed out in this article, as you said, was how Evert and Navratilova were portrayed compared to each other. Personally, I don't think the way a person looks should matter in regards to their performance, as long as they are performing to the best of their abilities, and fairly. The fact that Evert was viewed as feminine shouldn't even matter, because honestly, who cares? She was there to do something she loves, and so was Evert. Whether they look masculine, feminine shouldn't matter. Their performance is all that matters so I don't understand why anything else is analyzed other than to sell stories. I feel the same way about male athletes that may be criticized for being too feminine, etc. Simply analyze the way they are playing and stop looking for materialistic things that don't matter. Just like the Williams sisters being called the Williams brothers, they're amazing tennis players, and quite frankly if someone is that jealous or doesn't know how to properly cope with the fact that they are that good they feel the need to belittle them, then shame on them because that's ridiculous. How would they feel if they were treated like that, when they were just there to compete and do something they love, and something they've worked extremely hard for? They would be upset also.
Good post and thank you!
Jackie