Lindsey Vonn Actually Being on a ‘Sports Illustrated’ Cover: Purely Sexist

February 10, 2010

A couple of writeresses in “Newsweek” debated the Lindsey Vonn “Sports Illustrated” cover.

One, Kate Dailey, doesn’t like it. Here is some of her femspeak babble:

It’s not imagining things to notice that this position echoes sexualized magazine covers. It’s not imagining things to discuss why we feel conflicted or uncomfortable with this image. Trying to write off that discomfort as fake or invalid is not a useful rhetorical exercise. Asking Lindsey how she feels [about the cover] doesn’t really speak to that point: you, and I, and everyone else who has a reaction to this cover are discussing how we feel, and those feelings aren’t invalid just because we’re not famous skiers.

…

What makes me angry is that when women register problems with this picture, the reaction is to shout them down, tell them they missed the point, shame them into shutting up. It’s worth discussing why some people (since not all the critics of this photo are women) have problems with this photo, and looking at how that reflects on the culture as a whole.

If we lived in a world where female athletes, even the ones that aren’t leggy and blonde and gorgeous, graced the covers of magazines all the time in a variety of athletic positions, this picture wouldn’t seem so egregious. If women weren’t constantly sexualized and objectified in ads and art and other forms of media, maybe this ad wouldn’t have stuck out. But it did, and there’s value in discussing why.

After the chicks from “Newsweek” were done, I added appropriate perspective to the debate:

Guyinism recognizes that women should compete with the guys, not separately [if they can].

The only reason Lindsey Vonn is on the cover of Sports Illustrated is because she doesn’t compete with the guys: counting guys, she’s about the gazillionth best skier in the world. Without her sex, she’d be giving lessons on [the bunny slope] at Vail, and the only pictures the public would see of her would be on her Facebook page.

Since Vonn is on the cover solely due to her sex and since her entire career is based on her sex, sexualizing her is fair game.

The only reason we have ever heard of Lindsey Vonn is because of sexism – sexism that allows an inferior skier to compete in the Olympic games solely because of her sex.

How inferior? At the last winter Olympics, the guys’ downhill race was run on a longer course than the womens’. Nevertheless, gold went to a guy with a time of 1:48.80, 1.02 seconds faster than the bronze. The fastest chick - on the shorter course, mind you – finished at 1:56.49. Why can’t women even compete on the same courses, anyway? Why are their times so much worse – I’d think that in ski racing, out of just about any sport, there wouldn’t necessarily be a gender advantage. But of course, like in just about everything else – sports or otherwise - there is. Womens’ Olympic events – with the possible exception of the subjectives (e.g., gymnastics, ice “dancing,” diving) - are the Olympic equivalent of the white basketball league. If Vonn raced against guys, she’d have about as much success as Manon Rheaume had in professional hockey – she’d be nothing more than a novelty, 2010′s version of Eddie “The Eagle.”

Eddie "the Eagle" Edwards

To back of my assertion that Vonn’s inclusion on the cover is sexist, I quote The Sexist herself, feminist Amanda Hess, concerning what she has written about Sarah Palin with respect to, ironically, Palin’s “Newsweek” cover last year:

Is the Newsweek cover sexist? Yes. But let’s put the photo back into context for a minute: Sarah Palin’s entire existence is sexist.

…

Sarah Palin’s very existence as a national figure depends upon people being sexist. … sexism tends to help individual women, too, and it has certainly helped Palin. Sexism allows women to earn insane amounts of money for simply taking their clothes off, and it allows women to earn an insane amount of political power for simply being a hot conservative lady with no particular skill at public speaking, reading comprehension, telling the truth, or articulating a single political view that makes any sense, ever.At that point, can we really get bent out of shape every time we see the media reflecting the reality that Palin is a product of sexism in their coverage of her? We have crossed the Rubicon, people. Everything about Palin is sexist. …

And so is everything about Vonn.

Another “Sarah,” Sarah Ball, was the reasonable one in the original Newsweek debate. Her closing line: “What’s best for everybody? Vonn on the podium. Preferably standing up.”

Of course, neither Vonn nor any other woman belongs on the podium unless she has to defeat everybody – guys included - to be there. I’m sure I’ll be finding hell at least a little drafty by then.

Now, Lindsey Vonn, back that ass up.

Click on pen to