Quantcast

The Heteronormativity of the Nike's Women's Marathon

posted by The Rabbit Hole
Friday, April 27, 2012 at 7:10pm EDT

Blogger Courtney Szto is a Master's Student studying the socio-cultural aspects of sport, physical activity and health (or as some call it Physical Cultural Studies). Bachelor's in Sport Management. Former tennis coach & ropes course facilitator.

Support women's sports and SHARE this story with your friends!

I was driving to work one morning when I heard on the radio an ad for the Nike Women's Marathon.  Not unusual since Nike and running go hand-in-hand.  What caught my attention about this particular ad was when the female voiceover said something about San Francisco fireman in tuxedos awaiting the runners at the finish line to hand them a Tiffany necklace.  THAT definitely received a WTF reaction.

Photo from milemusings blog.

As I was driving I was trying to reconcile what I just heard: women run 26.2 miles to be rewarded with jewelry and a man at the end?  If Nike was trying to be subtle with its societal expectations of women they did a really poor job of it.  Let's break down the overt reproduction of gender norms (I would call it symbolism but that would require an attempt at reading between the lines):
 - society (specifically those in the West) expects women to keep an attractive and healthy appearance in order to find a suitable mate (insert marathon and marathon training here)
 - society expects women to find men desirable (insert firemen here)
 - society expects women to find a man who is able to provide and take care of her (again with the firemen + jewelry)
 - society says a single woman past the age of...let's say 30-35...must be a lesbian

Sure it's a Tiffany necklace instead of a Tiffany engagement ring but I think the dominant message is still - woman run towards man awaiting with jewelry.  That is the end goal! You know you have completed the race, and symbolically your role as a woman in society, when you find a man willing to give you jewelry.  Was Nike trying to make an overt political statement with the largest women's marathon in the world? Yes and no. I assume they would deny it and call it women's empowerment, but Nike is really just smacking us across the face with 'one man and one woman'. It might as well be the Rick Santorum women's marathon. It is a marketing ploy. Absolutely. Sex sells.  And there are, I assume, just as many women who run the race and think nothing of the firemen and the jewelry and would have run the race without those 'incentives', as there are women who specifically choose that marathon because of what awaits them at the finish line.  Marketing and advertising not only promote what society already desires but also what larger forces dictate that desire ought to be.

Photo from TeamTraining.

Heteronormativity is the assumption that everyone is heterosexual. It describes the fact that regardless of what television show you watch, what movie ad you see or what magazine you flip through you are almost guaranteed to see the message that man and woman are a natural alliance.  It is an assumption and ideology that puts everyone into the same box and forces many to climb out of it. Well I'm sorry to inform you that people don't fit into neat little boxes, even though necklaces do and a woman is not defined by the either the presence or absence of a man.

Would a Nike men's marathon with women in gowns holding an apple pie in one hand and managing a child in the other be received as uncritically? Would a Nike men's marathon with women in lingerie and a beer in hand at the finish line be acceptable?  I highly doubt the first scenario would ever happen and the second one wouldn't surprise me at all, but neither would be accepted as insignificant political and/or cultural statements.  So why, from what I can tell, has this race not received more outrage?

Photo from Runnersrambles.

I thought that when I googled the Nike Women's marathon there would be a plethora of feminist bloggers weighing in on the subject. To my surprise, almost all of the blogs I found were about runner's experiences...and not the critical kind.  For example, on Runner's Rambles I found: "Tiffany necklaces, firefighters in tuxedos, chocolate, Nike tech finisher's shirt, running through the streets of San Francisco...what more could a girl ask for?"  The only critical reflection that I have found so far about the marathon was from Wallflower Friend.  The part of the run that annoyed this blogger was that the expo at the end of the run was plastered with "I run to be...fearless...a survivor...sexy, which is where her feminist side took over.  Sexy, I might add, was written in ridiculously large font on the expo tent. I suppose we can chalk this up as another contradictory Nike initiative.  As much as Nike likes to represent itself as pro-woman athlete, it still does so within the confines of traditional gender norms.  Nike says it's okay to get sweaty, have muscles and be competitive (because those are the things that help it make money), but at the end of the day, you're still a woman. And as far and as fast as a woman can run, evidently Nike assumes that she should still be running home to a man.

The Tiffany necklace that runners receive at the end of the race reads "Run like a girl" on one side.  "Run like a girl" is Nike's attempt to challenge the assumption that running like a girl is inferior to how men and boys run.  It's Nike's contribution to the disintegration of gender norms.  But clearly, there are some gender norms that fall outside of Nike's strike zone.

Support women's sports and SHARE this story with your friends!


Filed Under:  

View Original Post at cszto.blogspot.com

View Resident_Badass's Full Profile

There are 14 comments on this post. Join the discussion!

Diane says:

The mixed messages that society is sent everyday by advertisers and marketers is what makes all of this so hard to combat. I certainly would expect more of Nike. On the one hand I applaud Nike's support of women, strong women, and on the other I cringe at every attempt to look through any woman athlete that may be non-hetero. They do have a very few women they sponsor who are non-hetero, or should I say not professed 'out' as non-hetero. The issue of non-hetero women athletes really needs to come out of the closet. I would hope that companies with big market influence would lead the way, but I'm not seeing it. Seems like the message is: Be Strong, but not too strong. Be Independent, but not too independent. Be Yourself, but in relation to your man. I'm not buying that message, nor will I sell it to anyone else. Women come in every variation under the sun, Nike needs to acknowledge that in every part of their interaction with society. Thanks for this post..a must-share.

Saturday, April 28, 2012 at 5:08pm EDT

Resident_Badass says:

Thanks for reading Diane. And I very much agree with your statement about "being" as much as we can, within pre-defined limits. I guess too strong and too independent don't sell shoes.

Saturday, April 28, 2012 at 8:05pm EDT

Crimson says:

Glad I stopped by to get a refresher on heteronormativity, now I can skip that Gender Studies course I was signed up for.

It is pretty amazing to me that rants like this continue be launched at businesses like Nike. They obviously understand the womens market and spend millions of dollars annually successfully selling into it. They are a business and are trying to make a profit. Unlike academia, Nike is not a wing of a political or social movement and they are not responsible as a business to promote the LGBT agenda just because you folks want them to.

Here is a simple math / business problem for you to consider:
Assume you own a business and have finite financial resources to market a womens sports product or activity to the target market of All Women. Would you decide to market to the 95 percent of the market that is generally acknowledged to be into the heteronormativity thingy you seem to dislike so much or would you go ahead and use those same limited resources and market to the 3 to 5 percent of the womens market that is generally acknowledged to be LGBT? Try to assume (or pretend) you are trying to make a profit, do not live in a socialist state and if you do not make a profit you will probably be looking for a job some time in the near future.

Point being that if it made sense and businesses could actually grow and make a profit by taking a mass market product, like Nike women%u2019s sports items or the WNBA and specifically market it to the LGBT crew then everyone would be doing it, making money and you and your friends would be happy. The bottom line is that it doesn%u2019t so they aren%u2019t.

I suggest you spend some time on the ESPNW Summit website.
http://espn.go.com/espnw/summit/ . There are several good videos of panel discussions on promoting and marketing sports to women. Many of the women work in the business get paid big bucks to figure out how to effectively sell to women and given their results they appear to be very good at it. These women clearly understand something that you may want to consider; it%u2019s business, not social work.

Sunday, April 29, 2012 at 1:55am EDT

Resident_Badass says:

Thanks for commenting Crimson. I'm glad you did because I don't think I did a good enough job explaining in my post that as much as the reproduction of heteronomativity is an issue (in my opinion) I did not really intend to argue that Nike should market to the LGBTQ community. What I was really try to get at is that it's a negative reproduction for women - gay or straight. How many single straight women feel bad about themselves because they are single into their thirties and beyond? How many young women out there feel they need a man to be complete? Why is it not okay just to be a single woman? So yes, assuming that all women are straight is one of my arguments, but what really bothers me about the Nike women's marathon is this idea that for every Barbie there is a Ken.

Now, to your point about it being a business and not social work, I ask why do they have to be mutually exclusive? Why can't we use business to try and enhance the social conditions for those along the margins? Nike promotes itself as a socially responsible company. It definitely has one of the most broad social responsibility portfolios of any corporation. Whether or not they are effective is for another conversation but they have used their status as a large corporation to give back. Adidas supports maternal health programs in Vietnam for their factory workers. It's certainly not something they have to do but they recognize an opportunity to make things better for both sides. Nike is already involved in "social work" as you call it. Nike could hold a women's marathon without the necklace and the fireman and i'm sure it would still be the biggest marathon for women in the world because they are NIKE. OR if you want to talk marketing dollars have men and women in formal attire handing out the necklaces and runners can choose who to go to if they care. If you want to talk numbers isn't 100% of the market better than 95%?

I'm not saying that anyone has to market specifically to the LGBTQ community, but leaving them out of your marketing plans is money that someone else is going to get.

Sunday, April 29, 2012 at 8:40pm EDT

Crimson says:

My experience with serious women athletes is that they are a very confident group, both when it comes to athletics and in their personal lives. If they have enough athleticism, discipline and determination to train for and finish a marathon I doubt some random dude in a tux at the end of 26.2 miles giving away those little blue Tiffany boxes is going to shake the foundation of their collective self image. The women runners I know would be OK with it, either by liking it or by accepting it for what it is, a Nike promotion designed to generate positive publicity for running and women%u2019s sports generally.

I think you are selling cis female athletes short if you think this promo is going to bum them out because they aren%u2019t married by the time they%u2019re thirty or whenever. As I%u2019m sure you know, most women who don%u2019t marry do so based upon their personal choice. If they do not like where they are when they get there that is another story altogether. Hopefully participation in sports gives them the confidence to disregard any familial or societal expectations of them. Frankly that is the spin folks like the WSF and others give to support Title IX, so hopefully it is true.

Most large companies specifically budget for the promotion of social causes. It is a standard budget line item and varies in amount based upon the economy in general and the financial health of a given company at a point in time. Some, like Ben and Jerries Ice Cream, make it their main marketing pitch. Most separate the specific promotion of political and social causes from their product marketing and promotion budgets.

Frankly I think Nike has been very supportive of LGBT athletes as was evidenced by their recent Abby Wambach commercial. Although she hasn%u2019t officially come out anyone with eyes and ears pretty much gets it. To expect Nike to spend mainstream marketing dollars to promote the LGBT thingy when most if not all of the referenced athletes are not Out seems like a bit of wishful thinking. Given the composition of the sexual orientation of the current USWNT including the coaching staff, they have been treated very fairly. The truth is that if Nike thought they could specifically promote LGBT athletes without damaging their main pitch to their core market they would do so. Nike understands what most of us understand but won%u2019t say. That being if a company decides to specifically promote the LGBT thing there is a real risk of alienating their core market. Most companies won%u2019t do it nor should they be expected to do so.

Frankly this does end up being kind of a LGBT conversation. It is the 500 lb gorilla in the room that no one, particularly cis women are willing to address directly. It is a major part of the reason that pro womens sports cannot make it as a business. It is also a major contributor as to why the greatest womens college basketball rivalry in the history of the sport was killed in 2008. This issue has a long history going back to the AIAW. It is amazing how little the base issue has changed in the past forty years.

Monday, April 30, 2012 at 12:17pm EDT

Resident_Badass says:

First, sport is not a panacea. It's not a cure all. It can be as negative an experience as it can be a positive one. If sport gave all women athletes the confidence you speak of then none of them would have body issues, none of them would have family issues, and none of them would fear coming out of the closet. We have seen sport foster racial hate (e.g. the recent twitter comments directed at Joel Ward for his game winning goal) as much as we have seen it break down religious and racial barriers through Right to Play type programs. So the fact that you think the confidence gained by running will collectively help women disregard the societal expectations that we are bombarded with everyday does not account for factors as large as, or bigger than, sport.

Second, your reference to the "LGBT thingy" is extremely hurtful and condescending. The "thingy" you speak of are human rights. I agree that capitalism and human rights are largely at odds, but the fact that you think market forces should be allowed to dictate which human rights are protected is unfortunate. Despite, the fact that the market currently operates above human rights does not mean that it is correct and it does not mean that we should not try to change it. You are clearly on the side of Nike, so I cannot expect you to change the status quo, which is fine. You are allowed to support what you wish, but please do not act surprised or annoyed when those who are not represented by mainstream marketing try to fight for some acceptance.

Monday, April 30, 2012 at 5:10pm EDT

Crimson says:

I don't have a problem if people individually or collectively decide to try to impact whatever social cause they deem appropriate or fashionable. That is their decision and their right. That said any expectation that private companies somehow have a burden to support a clearly partisan political cause with their privately earned funds is patently unfair. These companies already contribute to politically correct causes here in the States via that handy tool called the income tax and the government has a consistent track record of funneling plenty of those funds off to true believers and their causes. The fact that you christen your views as being about "Human Rights" reflects your political opinion, not any groundswell of public sentiment.

My LGBT comments are accurate and honest, if you decide to interpret them in a way that makes you feel hurt that's unfortunate. It is up to the "collective women" to figure out how to make women's professional team sports successful in the United States. They are not now and have not been to date. The LGBT issue looms large. I'm not being mean or hurtful here. That is a fact.

There are several knowledgeable LGBT contributors to this site that have made their opinions well known, foremost among them being Pat Griffin. Like you, while Pat is clearly experienced in many sports related issues her real objective is and has always been clear. That being to help move society along a social track that achieves her and her friends objectives. She, and you it appears, are just using sports as a tool to do so. I'm not saying I have a problem with either of your strategy or tactics, but frankly at base they seem to have little to do with sports. Athletics is just your medium, social change is your objective.

I frankly appreciate that this forum exists in it's current form as I can refer friends to help them understand what is really going on by reading output from folks like you and Pat. It's all good.


Tuesday, May 1, 2012 at 12:08am EDT

Resident_Badass says:

Sport, as a part of human culture, makes it relevant to all social issues. Humans created sports, which means that they were designed for some and not for others. A person's class and race affect which sports they are exposed to and allowed to participate in. A person's gender affects which sports they are allowed to participate in and the manner in which they participate. A person's geography affects their sporting opportunities. If black people participate in sport then it becomes a race issue. If gays participate in sport then it becomes a LGBTQ issue. If women participate in sport then it becomes a gender issue. Therefore, at its base sport absolutely has to do with politics. It is a political tool. The fact that there are no women playing in the NHL and NBA and must have their own leagues is a political statement by the powers that be.

You are bang on: athletics is our medium, social change is our objective. Do i expect Nike to put out a PSA like the NHL did in an attempt to combat homophobia in the NHL. Nope. Although, it would be cool. But expecting Nike to understand the implications of their reach, I don't think, is any more unreasonable than expecting oil or mining companies to do their due diligence with environmental concerns. What corporations do affects us, some to a greater extent than others but in that respect we can all be considered stakeholders.

Sport was committed as a tool to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, so there are many heads of states, politicians, and business people who believe that sport is very much included in the web of social problems that we face.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 at 9:41am EDT

Longhorn says:

My first big race was the Nike Women's marathon and I trained with Team in Training with my girlfriend. I'm a lesbian and not once did I ever think of it as a gay/straight issue because there are fireman handing out the necklace at the end of the race. All the people I know that have ran that race were more excited about the Tiffany's necklace than who handed it to them. Yes, little comments were made about the cute fireman. But honestly, none of us would have cared who handed us the blue box at the end...we were all excited to have finished the race.

It seems like some times people try to make something out of nothing. It's a great race with a great environment. I'm glad to see more events for women. It's exciting to be celebrated for being a woman...regardless of your sexual preference.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 at 11:37am EDT

Crimson says:

Badass - I appreciate that you are enthusiastic about your course of study and it appears that the old "if you have a hammer everything is a nail" maxim may be appropriate in this case. If you want to see injustice you will see it everywhere you look. That is your choice and you are entitled to it.

I find it more than ironic that you are fully prepared to play the disadvantaged card in every possible demographic sports scenario, but i do appreciate you at least stepping up to your ultimate motive.

Sports have always been about competing, person to person. That's the point, the best players should get to play. Supposedly it was the one place that people got a chance to go toe to toe regardless of their background. That's why people love sports. Given your world view I'm thinking that white men should bring an action against the NBA because over 80% of the players in the league are black. Sound fair to you?

I'll close by saying that given a contributor here at WTS has an initiative with a published objective of "Redefining Masculinity" which was funded by Bill Jean King's Women's Sports Foundation, the position of many in positions of power in women's sports have been clearly defined. I don't think most people really get your ultimate objectives, but they're going to start figuring it out.

By the way - I know it's not politically correct, but the reason that women don't play in the NHL or the NBA is that they're just not that good. If they were good enough to play then they'd be in there kicking ass and taking names. They just aren't. Sorry to let the facts get in the way. Blaming it on politics does fit your meme though.

Also - your New World Order socialist sports mandate BS doesn't play all that well with most people. It does however make me want to go back and brush up on my Orwell.

Longhorn - Congrats and Well Played

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 at 8:46pm EDT

Resident_Badass says:

Longhorn - thanks for commenting. As I mentioned in my post, I'm sure there are many who ran the race and thought nothing of the add-ons provided by Nike and I'm glad you enjoyed the experience. Sport is supposed to be enjoyable, but what is not questioned enough is "which" women are celebrated. What kind of women run marathons and what kind are left out of the picture? How are women celebrated and for what reasons?

Crimson - The ultimate motive you speak of is really just to try and help more people enjoy the positive experiences that I have had participating in sport. I love sport and my entire life revolves around it. In the same breath, not everyone has been as fortunate as me so I write as a method of drawing attention to those who don't make the front pages or the evening sportsdesk, or to create a discussion around who DOES make the front pages. I am well aware that, what you refer to as BS, doesn't fly with many people, but what you purport as facts aren't embraced by everyone either. If everyone agreed, what would be the point of blogging? I think this is where we agree to disagree, since both of us have made numerous points defending our positions. Looking forward to our next dialogue, you keep me on my toes.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012 at 9:33pm EDT

Caitlin Constantine says:

It's been my observation that a lot of companies and organizations aimed at women who like to race or compete in some way feel they have to compensate for some perceived inherent "boyishness" by laying on the stereotypical femininity as thickly as possible. I personally have no problem with the Tiffany necklace being handed out - it's a nice way to be able to wear a reminder of your accomplishment at all times - but I do see how the "firefighters jewelry chocolates tee-hee!" can be alienating to many women who just don't care about those things. I know that I, for instance, find the excessive pinkification and the almost patronizing attitudes of certain women-only races to be so repellent that I no longer take part in those races for those reasons.

Thursday, May 3, 2012 at 10:41am EDT

Caitlin Constantine says:

Crimson, for someone who thinks so poorly of female athletes, you sure do spend a lot of time on a website that is dedicated to female athletes. Why is that?

Thursday, May 3, 2012 at 10:41am EDT

Crimson says:

caitlin - I don't have a problem with women's sports and I don't think poorly of women athletes. Sports help everyone that competes. As you can see I do have a problem with social and political movements masquerading as support for women's sports and athletes. If calling out that the fact that women aren't playing in the NHL or NBA due to not being talented enough then I guess I'm guilty, but frankly that is just the truth.

Women's sports only came on my radar in a serious way when my nieces started playing HS basketball and volleyball and I became aware of the exponential ACL injury risk to female athletes. I found this site some time ago fully expecting that a web space with this broad of a reach to various women's sports entities would surely have valuable detail and links that would get me up to speed on what was being done on a local, state, regional and national basis to address what can only be called an epidemic of these serious, life altering injuries.

Unfortunately what I found is that there really isn't any coordinated effort going on to address this issue at any level. In fact I can only recall two contributors here that have even acknowledged this issue in an opinion piece in the past year. Only one of those contributors actually linked to serious information on the topic. Seemed confusing to me given the obvious problems.

What I have observed is that there seems to be plenty of energy in the Women's sports webspaces to advocate or promote for social justice, breast cancer, LGBT acceptance and whatever else, but basically zero interest in getting serious about ACL blow outs.

What has been particularly concerning to me is that taxpayer supported state institutions that ostensibly have departments dedicated to important issues relating to women's sports like the University of Minnesota and the University of Michigan have not produced anything meaningful on the issue at all. In fact if you become familiar with their charters and their staffs what you will find is that they normally have formal and informal ties into the Gender Studies Departments of these universities. There is not time or space here to get into why that is a problem as it relates to female ACL injuries, but suffice it to say that even admitting that this is an issue is something that the people at these institutions are not interested in stepping up to due to their respective world views. I'm sure you can appreciate that it's a bit hard to solve a problem if no one wants to actually admit one exists.

As you can see, I'm no feminist. That said they are entitled to their opinions. Where I draw the line is when innocent girl and women athletes blow up their knees because a significant component of the women in control of the women's sports movement won't even admit it is a serious problem. It is mind boggling to me that forty years into Title IX we have entire governmental, NGO and legal organizations in place to bring lawsuits and heartburn to athletic departments everywhere but not one organization has been honest about the ACL thing.

The truth is that I'm all for protecting all women's athletes knees regardless of their age, politics or sexual orientation. It's just a shame that women athletes themselves and particularly the leaders of their organizations don't seem to care one iota.

Frankly it would also be interesting to know why a dude like me seems to care more about this issue than all of the hundreds of thousands of women that have incrementally benefited from sports participation and / or employment in the Title IX era.

Thursday, May 3, 2012 at 12:53pm EDT

Leave Your Comment:  Read our comment policy

  |