Quantcast
  

Glamour Magazine Part II

posted by C and R's Stanford Women's Basketball Blog
Thursday, September 24, 2009 at 3:23pm EDT

Two basketball teammates who talk about the Stanford Women's Basketball games and women's sports issues, among other things.

Add to Technorati Favorites

We have a letter! From a fan! We have a fan. We have a fan not related to us genetically or geographically.

He wrote about our commentary on the Jayne in Glamour blog. And he mostly agrees with us. Another reason to post what he said!

Let me share with you what he said, because, well, he writes so much better then C and R! Let’s hope he doesn’t get in the blogging business.

Fan:
The magazine's emphasis on physical appearance, for a woman who is clearly a role model based on a unique combination of both athletic and academic excellence, is most definitely the wrong message. As a father of two teen-aged daughters, the societal obsession with appearance has been a continual battle, both with regard to their self-esteem and their focus (or lack thereof) on areas of development that really matter. All crazy, because they look just fine.

I must have read the article differently, because I was much more impressed with Jayne's future plans: "Off the court, Appel was inspired by a family member who suffers from mental illness to do advocacy work on the issue and volunteer for a support group. The psychology major plans to graduate early so she can prepare for the WNBA and expects to pursue a career in mental health advocacy." (yes, she did say that.)

Love and Kisses, your number one (and only one) fan.
(Okay, we made that closing remark up.)

Cand R writing again:
Oops, we kinda glossed over that part about Janye doing "advocacy work" and well, Jayne, we owe you an apology. C and R are sorry if we portrayed you as shallow and not having long term goals outside of sports. We hope you make it to the WNBA and use your fame to support worthy causes that are important to you. (I know this sounds snarky in a written form, but we really do mean this, sincerely.) C mostly wanted to comment on the type of magazine Glamour was and question if being in it was sending the right message to young people, not attack you personally.

(R always wonders if the Stanford players read this blog. C always say no, but R is the more hopeful one of the bunch. So Jayne, if you are sitting around the dorm munching popcorn with JJ, show her that your stalkers apologized, hee hee.)

Oh, want to see what we wrote back to our fan? (We need to fill some more space)

Opening paragraph, thanks for writing, blah blah, blah, you sure you are not R’s mother trying to make us feel good that we have a fan….yes, you are right about all those typos...so unprofessional...I blame R....yes, we know stalking is against the law....

Second paragraph, C writing here:
Growing up in the 1970's (shhh, no one do the math…), I was a tag-along little sister to three older brothers, (just like Jayne) and at first played sports because they did, and then later fell in love with all things sports! (is that a proper sentence?). My Mom did not understand this obsession with sports and my absolute lack of desire to be ladylike and wear skirts and high heels. Good thing I had all that "boy training" so when I played girl sports in high school I was good because I had been taught to play like a GUY and not ladylike!! (not the case today, women athletes are more properly trained to play like a guy, or more aptly put, aggressively and at a higher level) I hate when women athletes are forced to appear "feminine" for convention and society's sake. But I digress...

Oops, we did kinda gloss over the part where Jayne said she wanted "to do advocacy work on the issue and volunteer for a support group". I guess I better go write Jayne an apology. (See above, Jayne)

Keep raising those daughters right, with lots of self esteem and confidence and they will reward you be abandoning you and taking all your money and your sheets and pillow cases to go away to college to study engineering, a traditional "man's" major, as my daughter did this fall.... hee hee.... oh, I digress again.

Take Care, Love and Kisses
C
half of C and R
Stanford WBB

Geez, how many more days until college basketball season starts?

See the original post at C and R's Stanford Women's Basketball Blog

http://womenssportsinformation.com/blog.html

View Original Post at candrsstanfordwomensbasketballblog.blogspot.com

Add to Technorati Favorites

There are 3 comments on this post. Join the discussion!


Yvonne		 Wait,I'm confused. So now the pendulum swings so that athletes are supposed to feel bad for "appearing feminine?" Ladylike and aggressively athletic don't have to be diametrically opposed concepts? For too long female athletes were criticized and belittled for "acting like a man" and now they're being criticized and belittled for "acting ladylike". Martina Navratilova took crap in the '60s for looking like a man, while Chris Everett was the feminine tennis darling. 40 years later, we still don't get it. We should applaud female athletes like Serena and Venus who embrace who they are period - no molds to have to fit into. I think they were even featured in Cosmo (oh my). And guess what, Martina wears makeup - is she selling out her butch side? She's still a kickass tennis player, with a sweet, buff body, still lesbian and isn't above acting sexy. I think she's appeared in one or two "Lady" magazines too. What the hell guys! We shouldn't reconstruct the same kind of boxed-in definition of what female athletes "should" be or act like. We've been trying for years to bust out of the box. Why are you so eager to put us back in and seal the top? The whole point is to get to where the definition of being female is whatever the hell we want it to be. Poor Jayne got an apology with a condition. "We forgive you for being in Glamour magazine but only because you had the advocacy thing to back you up." Come on! That's bull! The enemy of feminism is objectification, no matter where it comes from. And sometimes it comes from feminists who need to take a step back. Ridiculing Jayne for being in Glamour was totally off track. The real part everyone missed is that Glamour, for all it's wrong messages, projected a fantastic message by featuring Jayne in the first place. Now that's an empowering message! Those are the kinds of features we should like to see in "pretty-girl" magazines and we should be writing letters to the editor with kudos for getting it right. I agree with "dad with two daughters" that the self-esteem issue is tough, but making our daughters afraid to appear feminine and pretty and girly is just as damaging to self-esteem and more confusing considering that it's the sex and estrogen hormones that drives the desire to be attractive in the first place. We'll only get it right when our daughters feel totally comfortable with acting certain ways and looking certain ways for their own reasons - not to satisfy the expectations of anyone else, be it the opposite sex, fans, bloggers and even dads. Having to defend or suppress your feminine nature is just as damaging to self esteem as objectification because it's the same thing - just with another master. It should not be wrong for an elite female athlete to be a girly girl, just as it should not be wrong for them to be butch. I am a mother with a son and a daughter who are both athletes, and now adults, and my biggest concern has always been that every decision they make for themselves is based only on what fulfills their expectations of themselves - not on anyone else's expectations, even mine.
Using your logic, we should chastise Natalie Coughlin, gold-medal Olympic swimmer (gold-medal record holder btw) and college graduate for appearing on Dancing With the Stars, the epitome of glamour and glitter and sexy costumes. Ironically, her female opposite, a fake-boobed, erotic bathing suit model is one of her opponents. We shouldn't have to make a choice between which women better represents the perfect female athlete. Ballroom dancing is every bit as athletic as other sports and that's what the focus should be. The eye-candy aspect is secondary because, if it didn't feel right to them, they wouldn't be doing it. And we should respect that. Besides, eye-candy doesn't have to be wrong.
Thursday, September 24, 2009 at 9:09pm EDT

robm		 There is much--literally and figuratively--to what Yvonne says. She is right. Such judgments perpetuate either-or thinking that is as unfair as it is illogical. Female athletes shouldn't be expected to pigeonhole themselves into a simplistic, and quite arbitrary, category.

I would add one caveat, however. It isn't good when female athletes curb their training for fear that added muscle will make them fall short of some outworn ideal of femininity. Given our often insane culture, such reasoning, though faulty, is understandable; but it results in their underachievement as athletes, and worse still, their having an increased risk of injury.
Friday, September 25, 2009 at 5:15pm EDT

Yvonne		 Excellent point robm. And that IS the point after all!

The fear you spoke of keeps getting substantiated by public smack downs - mostly from our own ranks - that quite clearly deliver the warning to get back in the box or else ... Unfortunately the fear has legs.
Saturday, September 26, 2009 at 2:56pm EDT

Leave Your Comment:  Read our comment policy

  |  

RELATED ITEMS:

Coaches Corner: Leaders lead when the coaches aren't around
Coach Musselman found an article with Nick Saban talking on the importance of leadership in the off-season -- when coaches aren't around. It is a valuable lesson that I learned from coaching Temeka Johnson, now with the Phoenix Mercury. Make no mistake, M
Bay to Breakers Fiasco
No longer late breaking news, but here are my two cents on even the thought that Bay to Breakers will cease to have the rowdy, drunken, naked revelry that it is so well known for.