After Atalanta

Annika Sorenstam's recent retirement announcement has created a lot of press--all of it favorable that I have seen. And some of the articles have a particular focus: how Annika did not sell her sex appeal to gain fame and fortune. It's a good angle. There are a few problems, of course. First, the implication is that Sorenstam didn't have the sex appeal to sell in the first place. In other words, because she just isn't as pretty as say her good friend Natalie Gulbis (the comparison made in this article in the Orlando Sentinel ) she had to rely on hard work and excellent skills. Well indeed she did work hard and she is an excellent golfer. But the woman is by no means homely. I happen to find her quite sexy. But because the media rely on and help create a fairly narrow standard of beauty (in and outside of sports) the "ugly" girls are the good players and the pretty girls and just pretty girls. Note that this doesn't hurt the less than perfect female athlete...

I appreciate a thoughtful piece of student sport journalism once in while; something that doesn't say "Title IX is reverse discrimination and men are now the underrepresented sex." The latter sentiment was actually one I read in response to the news the University of Delaware was cutting its men's track program. Anyway, this piece is out of Boston University, which is currently the home of the number one hockey team in Hockey East. And it's not the men's team. The BU women's team is doing quite well this season. (Far better than my own UNH Wildcats. Sigh.) What's more impressive is that the women's team is new to the Hockey East scene. Not brand new. But less than 5-years old I believe. And they have zipped to the top of the contender list quite quickly. One might argue about depth in the women's game and it's true that other conferences have, in recent history, been stronger than Hockey East for the women, but the DI women are producing so...

Dr. Mary Jo Kane's research (with Heather Maxwell) on sexualized media images of female athletes was released a few weeks ago and there has been some publicity about the ongoing project to assess the situation. I have seen a story here and there about it, but you know it's making waves when a Sports Illustrated columnist picks up the story. The gist of the research: sexy pictures of athletes may draw some eyes and numerous internet hits but they do not increase the popularity of women's sports. In fact they may be harming women' sports because such pictures are actually a turn off to real fans. So the rationale offered by many female athletes who do pose in nothing or next to nothing in various men's magazines--that they are bringing attention to their respective sports--is now going to ring a little falser (even before the study, some of us had doubts). What the SI column does not address is that this practice is likely to continue because the less altruistic reas...

American softball player Jennie Finch announced her retirement from softball last week. I have to say, I'm not too sad about this. I was never a fan of the pretty face version of softball she--and others--were promoting. Though it will be a real loss for the game as all those men who tuned in and came out for games to see Finch and her "toothpaste commercial" smile will now abandon the game as it loses its sexiest star. Oh wait...sex appeal doesn't sell women's sports...never mind. Maybe the loss of Finch will make the game a little less heterosexual? People are hoping that Finch will stay involved in the fight to get softball back into the Olympics, thinking, I would presume, that her "pretty face" will have some kind of wooing effect on the male-dominated IOC. Let's note that softball didn't get cut from the Olympic roster because the players were ugly. It got too closely associated with baseball and did not--allegedly--have enough of an intern...