I am an self-professed, loyal fan of the NYTimes. I browse their webpage several times a day, and anxiously await the delivery of the "blue bag of joy" to my doorstep every Sunday morning. I carefully comb through each section and the magazine throughout the week. That is not to say that I agree with everything I read, but I appreciate quality writing and good journalism. This is part of the reason why I was so disappointed and shocked to discover the cover of the magazine two weeks ago now. The title across the front page was, "Women Who Hit Hard" on top of a picture that doesn't give away what the article is about. I admittedly left the thing sitting on my coffee table for the last two weeks to fester. I finally picked it up yesterday and decided I should at least read the article, lest my anger be justified.
It only got worse. My first disclaimer is that I am not an educated tennis fan. I will turn on national and world championship matches. I know some of the most popular names in the game. But I could not accurately recite the rules, nor is it likely that I could actually hit a ball with a racket. Nor do I know anything about the evolution or history of the game. That having been said, I was a collegiate athlete and did coach on a collegiate level. I am intimately familiar with women's sports both on a club and DI collegiate level. So let me just state my more than mild disapproval as the attempt to pull this article off as a tribute to the progress that women have made in any game.
First of all, there are plenty of dignified ways to photograph or chronicle a sport without sexualizing the women in the photos. The clothing, the make-up, the poses - just really disappointing. I'll leave it at that.
Then there is the title, "Women Who Hit Hard." Only once you turn to the article in the middle of the magazine does the subtitle appear: "How Power Has Transformed Women's Tennis." I can only imagine that the author was trying to be provocative. So in that generous vein: congratulations! Mission accomplished.
The author's analysis of women's attitudes is unprofessional. To claim that women are somehow more unprofessionally emotional is tacky. But I'll let his words speak for themselves, "In Henin, the line between an expression of vulnerability and a devouring stare of slightly sour competitiveness can be fuzzy."
Jelena Jankovic, tennis player ranked third from Serbia, deserves a nod for articulating what the author fails to capture in this article. Of course there are going to be different ways for athletes to market their image. "It all depends on how you want to develop your brand. Some players want to be known as great tennis players, others for something else. I smile a lot, I show my emotions, and maybe that’s what I’m known for. It has become very competitive in this sense, but the level of tennis is very high.” Acknowledging differences is inevitable, and I'm certain it can be done without compromising the integrity of the game and the dedication of the athletes.
I guess that's the rub. I know so many women who have worked incredibly hard to advance the recognition and integrity of their sport. We have come a long way. But clearly there are many miles yet to be traveled, as I was starkly reminded by Michael Kimmelman's article. Objectifying women sexually, emotionally, or any other way is only a detriment to any progress that has been made. I am not one to ask for different expectations for males and females - be it in sports, journalism, the church, or any other arena. All I'm really asking is that we respect one another's integrity and dignity.