The Female Apologetic & Marketability

Recently in class we have discussed the idea of the female apologetic. This refers to acts by women such as wearing a lot of makeup or tight-fitting clothing while playing sports, which are performed in an attempt to combat the possible suggestion that they are lesbian or too masculine because of their participation in sport. One can certainly make a case that the female apologetic continues to run rampantly in women’s athletics, although you can’t truly prove if a woman is doing certain things only to dismiss possible speculation that they could be a lesbian — they may truly like to wear make up, etc, while participating in athletics.

The entire chapter — “All-American Girls Professional Baseball League Rules of Conduct, 1943-1954” from our text by Jean O’Reilly and Susan K. Cahn, which, as you would guess from the title, explains, the rules of conduct for women’s professional baseball. The first two rules explicitly fit under the idea of the female apologetic.

“1) Always appear in feminine attire when not actively engaged in practice or playing ball … At no time may a player appear in the stands in her uniform, or wear slacks or shorts in public.

2) Boyish bobs are not permissible and in general your hair should be well groomed at all times with longer hair preferable to short hair cuts. Lip stick should always be on.”

As an example, one of the greatest athletes of all time — Babe Didrikson Zaharias — often had to deal with more questions and whisperings regarding her sexuality rather than her tremendous athletic ability. Didrikson was often referred to with masculine terminology., too; “On she went, clipping the barriers with all the technique of an expert male,” (p. 19, O’Reilly & Kahn, 2007). Accusations of Didrikson being a lesbian continued quite often until her marriage to wrestler George Zaharias in 1938 quelled a lot of that speculation.

In modern day sport, I believe some female athletes may play into the female apologetic for marketing purposes. Not only are these female athletes who display feminine characteristics often persecuted or accused less for possibly being lesbians, it seems they’re infinitely more marketable and popular.

Not only do they have to do this to not be accused, but often it seems to be popular or marketable. In terms of popularity, see this list of the 30 most-googled female athletes in the world: http://www.totalprosports.com/2010/12/08/the-30-most-googled-female-athletes-in-the-world-pics/

Categorizing most of the women listed on that page as sex symbols would be more accurate than categorizing them as athletes. Examples such as Danica Patrick and Anna Kournikova are examples of athletes who have been marginally successful at best, but have certainly cultivated “sexy” public images of themselves. Whether this is wrong or not, I’m not sure if we can say. There’s probably more money to be made and endorsements to be had for female athletes who portray themselves as sexy, so I don’t think we can necessarily fault these women.

And still, there are women like Lindsey Vonn and Jennie Finch — elite athletes in their respective sports — who are successful but also use their sex appeal heavily. These choices have no doubt been profitable for both Vonn and Finch through photo shoots, endorsements, and other opportunities, but probably haven’t been very progressive for women’s athletics.

So whose responsibility is it? Should female athletes be more cognizant of this and try to rely more solely on their athletic ability, and not give in to do photo shoots and commercials like Patrick’s ads for GoDaddy.com? Or should they be encouraged to do whatever is most profitable?