What a SI cover honoring women would look like

[BainsBane]

Sports Illustrated is about sports. It's in the title, right? So if the magazine wanted to honor women, they would focus on some of the great female athletes. This is what an SI cover might look like in a world without sexism, if they published for an audience that valued women for what they accomplish in sports.














Now those are some fierce women!

[Desert805]

1. Oi vey.

[hlthe2b]

2. But, but, they aren't posing to be titlllating--how will that sell magazines?

All women must be thin--and beautiful, and half naked while posed in ridiculously provocative positions to be worthy, BainsBane. Don't you know that? Our daughters surely are learning that...

And, we'll hear a collective tsk tsk as teen suicide rates go up, young girls die from anorexia, or if lucky, only grow up with abysmally low self-esteem. But, it will all be worth it, right? Because we must entertain--damn the cost of exploitation.



But, yes, these are the role models that SI SHOULD be featuring. And, they are BEAUTIFUL while defining the true and active "art" of sport, competition and self-worth.

[BainsBane]

3. Those women are beautiful

and in prime physical condition, as is essential to being top athletes.

[hlthe2b]

9. But of course they are beautfiul.. Proving only that they needn't be airbrushed models

posed in provocative or even porn-worthy positions to be 'worthy' of a cover.

[PatrynXX]

43. if that were the case

Why do they feature hot sweaty and fierce looking men everyweek. Is the magazine mostly for women?

[hlthe2b]

44. Are you really saying that men are put off by images of sweaty men engaged in sport?

(and I am not referencing only gay men in asking that).

Your example has no bearing on the issue... Sweaty women engaged in sport would likewise not be an issue...
That is hardly a comparison to "provocative porn mag posing"...

[cui bono]

145. What? That makes no sense.

[Nika]

4. You are right of course. But that issue is gears to separate people from their money

by appealing to sexual lust unfortunately. It is not meant to honor woman.

[BainsBane]

6. Oh I know

It's just that some are pretending otherwise.

[Agschmid]

5. 5/26/2003

[El_Johns]

7. +1

[Agschmid]

8. 7/14/2010

[Agschmid]

10. 7/22/2012

[BainsBane]

11. What's your point?

That the swimsuit edition isn't sexist? That SI isn't sexist? I have no idea what the swimsuit edition is supposed to have to do with sports, unless they focused on actual swimmers.

[Agschmid]

17. My point is that they do create empowering covers..

And they do create sexist covers...

[Sarah Ibarruri]

172. Where are the Sports Illustrated covers showing the thin male models modeling swimwear?

And titillating, being coy, and having that, "I'd like you in bed, baby" look.

You didn't post even one.

[Agschmid]

183. Right here... Must I Google for everyone around here?

It's to to bad Mark Whalberg is somewhat of a homophobic ass because this picture just makes me want to jump right into those boxing shorts with him... DAYUM I only hope he can EVERLAST.



And I don't even know who this guy is but he can walk on water (a big plus) and has some cool tattoos (major plus)... So hopefully he is a top!



Even dripping wet in his solo wet t-shirt contest Michael Phelps just doesn't cut it for me... Not hot.

[theHandpuppet]

198. If your point was to show us covers with good looking men...

... I'm still waiting.

[Agschmid]

200. No my point was to show there are in fact cover with men that...

And titillating, being coy, and having that, "I'd like you in bed, baby" look.

But yah I agree Michael Phelps just doesn't make that list.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

203. He sure doesn't, does he? I like him, but he's not a male model nt

[theHandpuppet]

206. Frankly, the only one who even comes close is Mark Wahlberg

And that's not saying much.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

202. Good point - I want models nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

201. All right now! But I want a whole issue dedicated to hot men nt

[hfojvt]

26. the point being

that they actually DO lots of covers honoring those women atheletes.

The swimsuit edition?

Well, they get lots of publicity from that, and they also sell lots of magazines to teenage boys from that, and also to older men, maybe even sell a number of subscriptions with it.

I am pretty sure if it didn't sell they would stop doing it.

Although, I certainly don't think sales is a good reason to do something bad.

[Agschmid]

12. 2/6/2010

[hfojvt]

28. thanks

you seemed to have save me a lot of googling.

Or maybe it should be go-ogling.

[Agschmid]

31. Gotta love Lindsey!

She is an amazing athlete!

[Ilsa]

57. I think they tilted her image to get her butt up

higher. Look at her loose hair, and adjust the photo so that the loose hair is vertical. Her ass isn't anywhere near that high.

[Agschmid]

58. Umm you forgot this...

[Ilsa]

95. I wasn't being sarcastic.

Check how her hair is on the diagonal when it should naturally be closer to vertical. When you rotate the picture counterclockwise to adjust, her butt is much lower and as the other reply to my post indicated, she'd be going slightly uphill. Accident? Nah.

[Agschmid]

104. Really?

The photo is taken in a studio and clearly edited... I don't think that is the point? Your point seems to be that they emphasized her rear...?

I disagree but hey you are entitled to your opinion.

[Ilsa]

126. Yes, I think they rotated the photo to

Bring her rear up into a more provocative pose.

And just to see if I was alone in thinking that, I googled her, SI cover, and 2010 and got the same question posed by Huffington Post and a newspaper in Denver. They asked if it was intentionally provocative in a sexual way. So it's not like I'm the first person to notice this.

I studied marketing. No way this was a coincidence.

[FSogol]

91. True! That downhill skier is frequnetly seen skiing uphill on steep slopes during competitions

[aggiesal]

111. She's a downhill skier . . .

and they put her in a downhill tucked position.

I don't think highlighting her ass had anything to do with the angle of this image.

[Ilsa]

127. I think it was marketing, pure & simple.

Not just the downhill position, but rotating the pic to raise her butt.

Google her, SI cover, and 2010. Apparently Huffington Post and a newspaper in Denver raised the same question.

[SunSeeker]

85. Geez, they just HAD to make it a cheescake butt-in-the-air shot.

[Agschmid]

96. Kidding right?

[SunSeeker]

151. Wrong. Show me a posed shot of a MALE downhill skier butt up like that..

I've seen a lot of shots of Bode Miller, but none look like that. Bode was on on SI's cover. They never did that to him.

SI has had some great cover shots of female athletes. This shot is not one of SI's shining moments.

It's the same craven marketing that put a set of models' butt cheeks on SI's cover this week.

[Agschmid]

155. Ok here you go...

Aj Kitt's ass never looked so good...

[SunSeeker]

165. Nope, not the same cheescake squat as Vonn's.

Kitt is actually skiing, unlike Vonn whose butt was raised for the cover.

[Agschmid]

166. Kitt is not actually skiing.

But ok...

[Sarah Ibarruri]

173. Where's his come on smile? Why isn't he sufficiently bent over? Why isn't he looking at the camera

There's plenty of difference between the girl and the guy photos, and we just can't figure out why!

[riderinthestorm]

13. This is a great point. I'd love to see some stats on how often real women athletes are on the cover

versus men.

The SI swimsuit issue is obviously a marketing ploy to gin up revenue dollars.

The real meat of the issue is whether real women athletes on the cover are perceived of as bringing in revenue dollars as much as male athletes on the cover.

[Lonusca]

50. "perceived of as bringing in revenue dollars as much as male athletes on the cover"

I am sure someone here can (and will) count the number of the roughly 52 covers SI does each year and get the percentage of women athletes. And of course the number of women's covers will be significantly smaller than men. In the grand overarching scheme of sports that generate revenue, men have an advantage in the numbers.

Your second line is spot on, and it generates tons of revenue. For both the magazine and for the models.

I'm curious as to your last line. Is your question "do the women's covers bring in as much as men"? Or is the question "does SI put women athletes on the cover so as to look politically correct"?

[riderinthestorm]

67. Welcome to DU!

I'm curious as to your last line. Is your question "do the women's covers bring in as much as men"? Or is the question "does SI put women athletes on the cover so as to look politically correct"?

Yeah, well isn't that the kicker now that you mention it

Thanks for pointing it out...

[Lonusca]

79. Thanks for the welcome

I think I was confused on the perceive part. I think you were basically saying - how do the women's covers sell vs the mens covers (of athletes)? Say a Serena Williams vs. Peyton Manning. SI is mostly subscription I believe so those numbers would not vary. But the actual newsstand numbers might. I would bet that it does not matter very much to the SI reader whether its a woman or man.

The PC part was - assume women's covers sell drastically less than male covers (I am guessing there is no real variation). If they did - and that was THE driving factor in sales - SI would be nuts to ever put a woman on the cover. So - they would only put them on the be perceived as "good guys".

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

189. Well, let's put it this way....

Of the four separate special Sochi covers, three featured women, one with two of our Team USA snowboarders, Arielle Gold and Jamie Anderson. So of the five athletes on the cover two weeks ago, 80% were women.



Considering hockey is probably the most important of the Olympic sports to an SI reader, and not one hockey player appeared on the cover....

[RC]

14. It is the Sports Illustrated, Swimsuit Issue

That issue has to do with swimwear, or at least the models that wear them, not sports per say.
There are plenty of pictures of women in sports as shown by the pictures in your OP. I'm sure you did not have any problem finding them. So what is your real problem?

[CTyankee]

18. That is a question for YOU to answer, RC.

[RC]

23. I think I already know.

But my post would be hidden if I posted it.

[BainsBane]

35. Let me guess

You think it's all about something related to your ex-girlfriend.

If you're actually interested in what my issue is, you could read the threads in HOF. I won't hold my breath.

[RC]

39. Boy are you wrong.

I have read a bit there, so I do have an idea.

[BainsBane]

41. If you understood what you had read

You wouldn't need to ask.

[BainsBane]

20. Here is some swimwear

That results in gold medals.




My real problem is sexism. Did you somehow miss that?

[RC]

37. Funny how that only seem to go one way.

Hilarious sometimes.
I keep being reminded of this
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125533763#post18

[BainsBane]

38. You don't like gold medals?

Pray tell what you found so enlightening about that post? Now you're upset that I enjoyed one of the menz' threads?

[Fla Dem]

64. I'm fine with it, as long as they

publish a corresponding issue filled with gorgeous, sexy men only attired in skimpy suits.

[RC]

74. Sounds fair.

Not my cup of tea, but there are many that would like that idea and it would be equality, even if their nipples are showing.

[VanillaRhapsody]

176. You don't even want to start the fight about topless men in public when they have nipples too

fair warning...

[RC]

179. I'm just not seeing the big deal, no matter the gender.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

207. Now that looks like the equivalent of the SI female-models-in-swimsuits issue. nt

[LynneSin]

152. And to be fair the models they use on the SI cover seem to be curvier than fashion model

Rarely would you see some undersized girl with an eating disorder on the cover.

[RC]

154. That does seem to be true.

I don't pay much attention to sports, not even the cheerleaders. Just no interest. But I pay attention to the commercials when I do watch TV. It is not unusual for the commercials to be at least as good as the programs they interrupt.
The 'Walking Tinker Toy' women in many of the commercials annoys me, because you do not see women like that in real life, which is good because starvation is not healthy. Those women are not Photoshopped either. That is the way they actually are. Makeup doesn not make one skinny.
I for one, am more likely to buy their products, if they have real looking people in their ads. Farmers, Progressive, the current T-Mobil, most car ads, even :::cough::: Wal-Mart (i don't go there). Give me people in the ads I can identify with, not some animated Tinker Toy, dressed to the nines, that look like they need help for their eating disorder.

[blackspade]

159. So where are the men's suits?

If it's just about swimwear, right?

[RC]

160. As I said, I don't care much, one way or the other.

I don't look at the Sports Illustrated Swim Suit Edition. I'm not even sure if I have ever looked at one, except what shows up on DU.
Take it up with Sports Illustrated.
When they can sell as many magazines with barely dressed men, as they do with barely dressed women, then you will see that too.
Then the fight will be over which edition should be labeled the woman's edition and which the men's edition

[Sarah Ibarruri]

168. If it did have to do with swimsuits, why aren't men modeling swimsuits?

It has nothing to do with swimsuits. It has to do with female models in a semi-state of undress, or there would be male models in an equal semi-state of undress. It is, as other men have said, SOFT PORN.

[pnwmom]

170. Why does the Swimsuit Issue not also feature men posing in thongs?

Men clumped in groups of three, backs arched, smiling coyly over their shoulders?

[RC]

174. Take it up with Sports Illustrated.

I have no pull with them at all.

[pnwmom]

175. Sports Illustrated didn't post their silly cover in this progressive website. Some DUer chose to,

for reasons unclear.

[CTyankee]

15. Most excellent post!

What a wonderful group of athletes!

[BainsBane]

16. For the swimsuit edition

[B2G]

19. Or these

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-elkjgat6j-U/UkN5JsYYYGI/AAAAAAAAA_U/3GCbuJtJC9A/s1600/Brandi+1.jpg

[Agschmid]

21. .

[Schema Thing]

24. I find these more realistic than those from the OP ;)

[Vashta Nerada]

22. I agree with you.

Using the argument that SI is using the swimsuit edition to honor women is a sad excuse. As you pointed out, if SI really wanted to honor women athletes, they'd do so using pictures you posted.

[Agschmid]

25. Sochi preview...

[BainsBane]

32. Funny how those covers weren't posted in GD last week

Perhaps it has to do with the fact the biggest fans of the swimsuit edition aren't so keen on powerful women who could kick their shriveled asses across the room?

[Agschmid]

34. Well let's start posting the empowering covers as well.

They weren't posted by me because I was staying out of that thread... Yipes!

[BainsBane]

36. So did I

I refuse to feed their shitfests.

[Android3.14]

70. That made me laugh

Especially when the opening course was your OP.

[BainsBane]

73. Nonsense

This is a thread full of positive images of female athletes. How could anyone consider that flamebait?
Then there is the basic fact that other thread was several days ago, and there have been several others since, so this can hardly be the "opening course." I'm sorry that seeing women accomplish things in life is so objectionable to you.

[opiate69]

86. Yeah.. you'd rather just start your own...

[BainsBane]

88. Do you have a problem with this thread?

Do you see something wrong with posting images of world class female athletes excelling at their sports? I think that snowboarder and free-style ski jumper are about as awesome as it gets. What should you object to that? Do they scare you?

[opiate69]

94. Riiiight... Because...

Given the Defcon5 meltdown we've had here over this topic, your posting this thread is obviously 100% certified organic, agenda-free, and you will be shocked - SHOCKED, I SAY - when it devolves into yet another front on the "DU gender war." Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a meeting with a real estate agent about a nice bridge in NYC. He assures me I can get it for a steal..

[BainsBane]

99. It's an effort to approach the issue in a positive way

which naturally is something you find unacceptable. It is indeed part of an agenda. That agenda is called feminism, empowerment, and equality.

Now you can go back to the clubhouse and use vulgar language to denounce me for perpetrating such an atrocious thought crime.

[seabeyond]

101. It is indeed part of an agenda. That agenda is called feminism, empowerment, and equality.

you warm the cockles of my heart... too excellent.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

209. Why a gender war simply because we see it as wrong that a sports magazine...

has an issue dedicated to NON-athlete model females wearing skimpy and suggestive bikinis? Guys (not right wingers, but real guys, lib guys) should be on board with the idea that women should not be sexualized that way.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

186. What was laughable is that you acted like SI NEVER shows those photos and writes those articles

And when it was pointed out to you they do, two weeks ago as a matter of fact in the Sochi Preview, you want to change the subject and pretend this was just about posting photos of fierce athletic women....like ones that have appeared for years in Sports Illustrated.

Can you even name half the women in the photos you posted? I mean, outside of Serena? I bet you can't without going back to your Google history.

[BainsBane]

191. Sigh

It really doesn't take much to set you guys off, does it? People enjoyed this thread, as is obvious by the recommendations. Deal with it.




As for what you think about my knowledge of sports or anything else:

[Union Scribe]

55. Did you post them then?

And if not why? And if not how can you complain that others didn't?

[BainsBane]

56. I just posted this OP

Did you somehow miss that?

[Union Scribe]

60. You're complaining about last week

Today, after the fact, doesn't tell me anything besides that your concern about it is rooted more in GD wars than any real issue. You're blaming people for not posting things you weren't posting either, and using that to condemn others while conveniently forgetting yourself.

[BainsBane]

90. So you're blaming me for not posting it quickly enough

And evidently for having other things to do during the week, like work for a living. It there some reason I should give a shit?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

187. It's fairly obvious she has little to no idea Sports Illustrated....

....ever printed a cover or a photo of a woman in anything other than a bikini until now. It's quite frankly embarrassing.

[BainsBane]

192. Be embarassed all you want

Sports Illustrated may indeed represent the height of intellectual endeavor for you. It doesn't appear anywhere on my radar of what it means to be an educated person.

Since you're such an expert, why don't you share with us the percentage of covers devoted to female athletes vs. male. Agschmid posted a series of covers in this thread, and I don't believe more than one was from the past year. But really, you don't care about any of that. All you care about is the fact a woman somewhere on this site might be harboring negative thoughts about the sacred swimsuit edition your little clique worked so hard to make the center of GD during the past week. You clearly didn't get enough drama for your efforts, so you're going to go around and fling shit until you get what you want. You go ahead and enjoy yourself. God forbid anyone try to make anything positive out of the shit storm you pals worked so hard to instigate.

[Agschmid]

193. Here are some facts...

In the 57 years since Sports Illustrated's founding, a woman has appeared on a (non-swimsuit issue) cover 66 times—on average, just over once a year.

So basically if you add back in the swimsuit issue you'd get two covers (of ~50) a year. That's pretty low...

Source

[BainsBane]

199. Thanks. That's very helpful

Then the argument that they feature female athletes "all the time" is false.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

195. Ah, yes....let's get into the rarefied air of your intellect....

....as you sniff down your nose with dismissive comments about the great unwashed who would read such pedestrian trash.

I apologize, I have a tendency to do this....like to the right wingers I encounter who like to project what MSNBC does on a daily basis when they themselves never watch it....if you're going to make up bullshit, try to get near the net on the shot. And I can do all this while not being a particularly avid reader of SI, or a daily watcher of MSNBC. I read and watch enough of the subject to know when someone else is talking out their ass about it. Plus I did grow up reading it a lot more than I do now. I also walk and chew gum at the same time.

As far as how many women grace the cover, well considering the four major pro sports are male competitive sports, not many in a given year, obviously. However, as I pointed out and you likely don't care....three of the four Sochi preview covers featured woman Winter Olympians. So 4 of the 5 athletes on the various covers just two weeks ago were women. And it also included some of the breathtaking photography similar to what you posted of women athletes in action. Quite frankly, I wonder how many of the images you Googled probably appeared in SI originally.

As far as the swimsuit issue, I haven't even glanced at it yet and am in no big hurry to, nor have I jumped in much on the threads supposedly praising it with my "pals". I just think it's hilarious when you post talking in your absolutes and come off sounding like one of the FOX News crew crying about the librul media never saying a thing about Benghazi but focusing on Bridge-gate. It's like your Liz Hasselback and Sports Illustrated is CNN and Chris Christie's wearing a thong while being objectified by Anderson Cooper or something.

[BainsBane]

196. Oh, I see

Last edited Tue Feb 18, 2014, 01:12 PM - Edit history (1)

So your temper tantrum over a thread with over 150 recommendations is entirely random and unrelated to the other fits of poutrage by your besties in this thread. You just coincidentally work yourself into a furor for no apparent reason.

Whatever you say. In that case your reaction makes even less sense. You really need to see to whatever it is that leads you to burst out in random fits of indignation. It can't be good for your health. An excess diet of cable news, of the sort that leads to the free association at the end of your post above, might have something to do with it.

Deep breaths, and think of bunnies and kitties.


?4

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

197. Ah yes, an "excess diet"!

"Now I for one have never touched so toxic an elixir, not even one drop in my life! So, therefore, allow me to regale you with my vast experiences with said poison...."

[Agschmid]

194. Well to be honest...

They don't do it very often. My argument is that there might not be anything "wrong" with that but your tirade through the thread is somewhat laughable.

When all you've got is ad hominem you haven't got much.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

169. You nailed it. nt

[Lost_Count]

27. I think everyone is pretty honest about why there are bikini girls on the front...

It's not like they are trying to be sneaky about it...

[Agschmid]

30. +1

[BainsBane]

33. I was told that cover celebated women

Last edited Sun Feb 16, 2014, 05:13 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't consider that honest.

[Lost_Count]

75. In some aspect I'm sure...

In a more realistic aspect they are there because men like looking at attractive women.

They probably sell a few more magazines and it gets the name out every year to a magazine that is rapidly becoming less and less relevant.

Doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

208. Yup, and not one of the swimsuit girls are athletes, so it's weird for Sports Illustrated.

Perhaps if other non-sex magazines and journals did that (had a bunch of models in bikinis), there'd be an outcry?

[Agschmid]

29. Sochi preview...

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

188. She's seximified for the purposes of objectimifiacation!!!!

I see no purpose for that skin tight suit!!!! Where's her snow burka like all teh menz wear????

[ismnotwasm]

40. Perfect

Top of their game, passionate, driven, aggressive. Absolutely stunning

[noiretextatique]

42. indeed...celebrate the accomplishments of female atheletes

What a concept.

[seabeyond]

45. the women that do, excellent. nt

[BainsBane]

46. "Sports"

It's in the title. Would seem like a no brainer. Someone said it's supposed to be about swimwear, so I posted the gold medal winning USA women's Olympic's team in their swimwear. He didn't like it. I guess it really isn't about sports or swimwear.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

47. They did when Brandi Chastain changed women's sports for all time....

[yuiyoshida]

92. Wasn't there some kind of

Controversy over the fact that she tore off her shirt? I seem to remember some stupid commentators making stupid comments about it.


Oh ...and with the World Cup, the Team Japan!

[BainsBane]

93. Yes, stupid is exactly what it was

Like there was anything wrong with her celebrating a world cup victory. It's not like she was even close to naked.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

134. That moment was awesome....

Settled in a string of penalty kicks.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

106. Yes. The famous stupid question of where a sports bra rates on the boner meter....

I believe they decided it wasn't even half mast.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

214. That was an amazing thing. The exhuberance! The strength and toughness!

Just a "WE'RE THE BOMB!" reaction.

None of those come-hither looks, and that "hey baby, I'm sexy, look at me" (wink wink) look, nor the "oooh, the wind is blowing through my hair as my nipples are erect and I sure do love you guys to look at my ass." lol

[Spitfire of ATJ]

215. There are many who felt Scurry won that....

[Sarah Ibarruri]

216. Well, that's true. nt

[Triana]

48. Exactly. Thank you. n/t

[Blue_Adept]

49. So, as other posts after the OP have shown, they've done many of these covers over the years.

Honestly, I'd love to see a mens swimsuit issue released as well. I wish they'd do it to see what kind of business it could actually do. We know that the swimsuit issue as it stands is a huge release every year and it does a lot of business for the magazine in advertising sales, subscriptions and general renewed interest after coming out of the winter season.

While I doubt a mens swimwear issue would do as well, especially at the start, I suspect they'd have some strong numbers overall simply from a curiosity point of view for many.

[Deep13]

51. How is that different?

Either way, the publisher is using the images of women to entertain others, including men, for profit. At least models are paid for their poses, but they can publish these images as "news" without compensating those depicted at all. So how is this not objectifying if so-called glamor photography is?

[BainsBane]

53. Because it is based on atheltic accomplishment

On what they do. It's a sports magazine. They regularly feature athletes on the cover. The swimsuit edition has nothing to do with athletics. The women above are all world class athletes.

[Deep13]

65. So aren't we still objectifying them for their bodies?

They are using their bodies for athletics rather than sex appeal (I use that expression loosely). In objecting to prostitution as a profession, someone told me that those women were selling their bodies. Well, so do laborers.

I pose this question because I am trying to nail down conceptually just what the difference between objectification and subjectivity really is. In that I don't think we can claim that sexuality is qualitatively different from other aspects of our physical beings. If you are working for someone else's benefit and you depend on that for subsistence, then you are being exploited whether it is labor, sex, or knowledge.

[BainsBane]

66. No, their bodies are conditioned for performance

not appearance. They train their bodies to perform at the highest level in their particular sport, which varies according to the sport in question. That is true for men and women alike. Gymnasts are thin and small. It a woman or man grows tall, they can't do gymnastics. Downhill skiers need to be heavy enough to build speed going down the mountains. Women who are naturally smaller, like Julia Mancuso, work to put on weight through muscle to enable them to go faster. Skeleton riders also need to be heavy. Short track skaters are shorter and lighter, whereas inline speed skaters are taller and have large thigh muscles. Their bodies perform functions. They don't starve themselves, develop bulimia and anorexia so they appear how magazine editors and fashion designers want them to look. They become world class athletes because of results, not what they look like.

In fairness, as far as models go, swimsuit models are healthier. Most high fashion models are far too thin to appear in swimsuit ads. You would seen nothing but skin and bones. Male models are also hired based on physical appearance, but they aren't expected to starve themselves to the point where they become unhealthy.

[BainsBane]

78. Focusing on what the women in those magazines do misses the point

The problem is not that women sell their beauty or sexuality. It is that women in our society are valued for physical appearance above all else. The point is whether we celebrate women for how they look or what they do. Athletes use their bodies, chefs use their hands, artists use their hands. We all use our bodies in some way. But if women are to be valued as full human beings with equal rights, they should not be reduced to commodified, photoshopped images that capitalist culture convinces men are beautiful and therefore valuable. Focusing on athletes, artists, scientists, etc... highlights women for what they do, not simply whether they appeal to the dominant culture's notion of beauty.

It's also about the fact that men who resent women use those sort of images to mark their territory, to create a hostile environment to show that their space is a male one where women aren't welcome. The men most insistent on promoting those images also resent the fact they have to compete with women in the workplace, resent the fact that women are honored for anything but their appearance, and resent the fact that they are no longer guaranteed to earn and own more simply by being male. They use the most vulgar language possible to refer to women and their sense of entitlement so great that become angry when anyone suggests they shouldn't call women "b...ches" or "c....ts." You can't possibly tell me men like that value or even like women. There is a reason they are most comfortable seeing women as disempowered, disembodied objects.

If we lived in a truly equal culture where female sexuality truly did belong to women themselves and was only one part of what was valuable out them, as it is for men, that it might be just another attribute. But that is far from the case. No thinking, honest person can pretend otherwise.

Having had other conversations with you, I'm finding it difficult to believe you don't understand these concepts.

[oneshooter]

52. How about these women?

Or do they not count because of politics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/sports/olympics/kim-rhode-of-us-takes-gold-in-womens-skeet-setting-records.html?_r=0

http://www.womensoutdoornews.com/2013/11/women-beretta-olympic-skeet-competition-shooter-haley-dunn/

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/five-female-trap-shooters-watch-u-shooting-olympic-142800451--oly.html

Just a few.

[BainsBane]

54. I didn't include poker players either

I included the kind of sports that SI regularly features.

(Why everything has to be about your infernal guns. Give it a rest.)

[oneshooter]

63. So it is about politics. You don't conceder them to be athletes.

With you, it's all about the politics.

More the shame.

[BainsBane]

76. You're free to start your own thread

Last edited Sun Feb 16, 2014, 05:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Feminism is indeed about politics. It's also about human rights. BTW, if you don't like politics, especially liberal politics, this probably isn't the best place to hang out. You're more than free to post your own pinup gallery. I'll even start it off for you.

[alarimer]

83. I don't consider shooting to be an athletic sport

I don't consider race-car driving to be an athletic sport either. Skilled, yes, but not athletic.

[oneshooter]

102. So the biathlon competitors are not athletes?

and neither are Olympic skeet and trap shooters are not? Neither are the pistol and rifle Olympic shooters, or the archers?

I would bet that you have never tried any type of shooting competition. You speak from both ignorance and prejudice.

[BainsBane]

148. They are. It's just one of the more boring events

That and curling.

[madrchsod]

153. driving a formula one car compares to any other athletic event

the difference between the top drivers and others is there athletic abilities and of course a good car and team. try driving a stock car 500 miles on a hot day. try driving a f1 car where every muscle in your body is focused into driving the car.

[Beacool]

59. Naahhhhh, being a woman is all about T&A.

Brains? We don't need no stinky brains.

[RoccoR5955]

61. One with Danica Patrick on the cover. N/T

[Divernan]

149. Right!All racedrivers wear 6 inch, open-toed, high heeled shoed to compete!

http://www.hookedondriving.com/blog/post.cfm/driving-shoes
1. When driving on a track, definitely consider what shoes you are going to wear, and by all means they MUST have a closed toe – NO SANDALS of any kind!

2. Your shoes should allow “feel” of the pedals through the soles

3. The soles of your shoes should be able to grip the pedals securely

4. They should fit securely with concealable (I tuck mine in) laces or other reliable closures (i.e. Velcro)

5. There should be low, or no heel elevation – (we had a lady in stiletto heeled boots arrive one day to drive a Carrera on track…yikes!)

6. Just forget about cowboy or construction boots, vibram-soled shoes, and penny loafers!

7. If you are driving a race car on track, the shoes should be fire resistant with Nomex lining

8. The sole of the shoe should have a heel that has some curve, to allow fluid rocking of the shoe from side to side and fore/aft while resting on the floor of the car


Not to mention the skin tight stretch pants. (as opposed to flame retardant jump suits )Being curious, I googled Danica Patrick and photos and found the photo in the OP was a really mild one. She loves to soft-porn pose in bikinis next to cars, either with her butt stuck up toward the camera, in a "twerk me, big boy" pose or -how to describe this - crouched down in front of a car with her legs spread as wide as possible, in a pose which to some would say, come f**k me - unless she was practicing for childbirth.

I never read SI. Are there any covers or even inside photos of male athletes (not pro wrestlers) in provocative poses and clothing? Danica may be a fine driver, and she may have decided to use sex to sell herself to get lucrative product endorsements. Her choice. But that choice and her soft porn photo gallery feed into sexism.

[RoccoR5955]

157. I know, I know

But Danica is one of the most competitive women to break into NASCAR. At least in the many years that I have followed it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

177. and do cheesecake GoDaddy commercials!

Ugh!

[madrchsod]

62. they have ...

there are three major sports in the usa football,baseball,and basketball. the majority of covers of si covers these sports.
after going through the sports illustrated covers archives it would seem they have given at least one cover a year to a top female athlete of that year. women of tennis,track and field,swimming,auto racing,skiing,soccer are among the covers that featured female athletes of those years.i took a sampling from the 80`s.90`s, and 2000, and just about every year they had at least one cover other than the swim suit.

[Lunacee_2013]

68. K&R.

I wish everyone would just "get it" already. Black-white, gay-straight, female-male, whatever. People are people, not objects.

[greiner3]

69. I've noticed American men;

For a large part, are afraid of 'strong' women; real and metaphorically.

[Android3.14]

72. Then you need to meet more American men

And American women.

[Revanchist]

184. Not all of us. Some like this kind of swimsuit model

Last edited Tue Feb 18, 2014, 03:44 AM - Edit history (1)

[Sarah Ibarruri]

213. Yup - I think there are gender stereotypes in the U.S. here that need to be dispensed with

So I agree with you.

[RiffRandell]

71. Did you send them an email?

I'm sure they would appreciate your input.

[ecstatic]

77. This is the most effective post I've seen on the topic

I've been pretty much ambivalent about the whole thing but your OP makes a good point.

[one_voice]

80. SI does covers with women.

your title implies they don't. Dishonest.

You don't like the swimsuit issue? Fine. But don't act like they don't put women in their sports glory on their covers.

That's patently dishonest.

[druidity33]

81. I'm honestly curious...

Would it make a difference to you if there was a Men's Swimsuit issue?

I don't think the regular Swimsuit issue will be going away anytime soon, precisely because it makes a lot of money. If you could change anything about the current yearly Swimsuit editions what would it be?

I have stayed out of these threads entirely (i've read most of them), but i want you to know i respect your POV and wish the world (especially the US part of it) was a less effed up place.

:hugs:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

211. It would make a difference to me. They wouldn't be singling out women...

for sexualizing and soft porn.

[druidity33]

217. I guess for me...

I'd like to see some kind of survey (anonymous) of former SI models as to how they felt about the gig before i enthusiastically endorse ending the Swimsuit edition. I agree it's tasteless and has nothing to do with Sports and that a Men's Swimsuit edition would go a short way towards "evening the score". But i'd still like to see a better solution emerge. Like maybe SI apologizing for all those years of exploitation for the sake of a greasy buck, maybe a scholarship fund to help women in Sports or maybe perhaps some BETTER COVERAGE OF WOMEN'S SPORTS.

Ah, if only...

BTW, i'm totally stealing your sig line...

[Sarah Ibarruri]

218. I agree with you...

They should apologize for not focusing more on women's abilities, and focusing too much on women's sexuality.

And btw, steal it and share it!!!

[madokie]

82. Thats a fact

[kamron]

84. beautiful but..

I don't like chicks that can kick my a$$.

[BainsBane]

89. No doubt

I personally don't like men who are afraid of powerful women. We all have our preferences.

[hughee99]

87. Sorry, I can't support the exploitation of women.

Many of these women work and train hard for their respective sports and will have various health issues later in life as a result.

[BainsBane]

125. They are FAR healthier than most of us.

[hughee99]

132. NFL players are far healthier than most of us, too.

Their bodies are also exploited for the entertainment of others, and many will end up with medical issues later in life as a result of their profession. Obviously, football is a more extreme example than tennis, but it's only a matter of degree.

[pacalo]

97. Duh. SI has always put female athletes on the cover!

How disingenuous to suggest that it doesn't "honor" women because you don't like their annual tradition of a swimsuit issue.

Sickening.

[opiate69]

103. Sickening, to be sure... But typical.

[pacalo]

105. I'm trying to keep out of these victimization-all-the-time threads, but damn it...

I'm a woman, too, & this particular faction does not speak for me. It's a fool's errand to argue the fact that men & women appreciate each other's attractiveness -- always will.

[BainsBane]

107. Vicitimization? These are world class female atheletes

Jesus. What a truly bizarre comment. Believe me, I would never claim to speak for you. I can't even imagine what kind of person could possibly cultivate anger over a thread like this and refer to it as about "victimization."
Now that someone might think something you don't approve of is an outrage. Take your thought police surveillance elsewhere.

I'll also point out this thread you consider so horrible has over 100 recs while the one you admire got 9. Clearly most people do not agree that celebrating powerful women performing at the top of their sport amounts to "victimization."

[pacalo]

110. Yes: *victimization* over a swimsuit issue cover that was posted in GD.

You should have researched before suggesting that SI doesn't put female athletes on its cover. It's a flat-out lie.

"No one claims to speak for you" -- Your brigade is overbearing about its narrow-minded beliefs & puts most of its energy in controlling the GD forum with your extreme views. To run roughshod over DUers who know that it's natural for men & women to appreciate attractiveness is extreme.

Go on scratching your head with your brigade over why your tactics aren't effective. Play dumb. Generally, your faction is doing more harm for the feminist movement than you are evidently aware of. We're all adults here & we don't need nannies.

[BainsBane]

121. I am not a brigade

I am an individual person, a human being. I'm sorry you find that concept difficult to grasp.

If you don't like my threads, you are free to put me on ignore. While you're at it make sure to block the women's history museum, the civil right's museum, black history month and women's history week, because evidently you see celebrating accomplishments of anyone but the elite as "victimization." You want to work yourself into irrational outrage because someone wants to post about women achieving great athletic success, that is your problem entirely.

We don't need nannies, and that includes you. No one needs your poutrage over what you imagine someone might be thinking. It's not enough not to criticize the swimsuit thread, a thread I stayed out of entirely. That you imagine someone might think something negative about it makes you furious. I nor anyone else needs you act as the self-appointed thought police. You couldn't possibly have any concept of what I think. Do yourself and me a favor by resolving to devote as much energy to what I think as I do to you, which is exactly none.

That this is now one of the most recommended threads on the site should tell you that few people agree with you.

[pacalo]

131. Folks, file these quotes under 'pot meet kettle' to use during the next poutrage of the week:

If you don't like my threads, you are free to put me on ignore.

We don't need nannies, and that includes you. No one needs your poutrage over what you imagine someone might be thinking.

I nor anyone else needs you act as the self-appointed thought police. You couldn't possibly have any concept of what I think.

[BainsBane]

141. My, you are original

Now I remember why I don't bother reading many of your posts. Looks like I haven't missed much. You'll have to continue nurturing your grudge without me.

[pacalo]

144. Well, now, I may reply to only 3 or less posts a day of reading;

Last edited Mon Feb 17, 2014, 04:36 PM - Edit history (1)

I have another priority known as 'real life' that I have to attend to before I'm able to sit down, relax, & have the late evenings to read DU. I'm more of a reader, so it's rare that I post replies -- much less, OPs of my own. So I can totally accept your gracious & melodramatic slur as a badge of honor -- you're quite disingenuous.

Ignoring me will be easy because I'm quite the opposite of this ...

[opiate69]

142. Some of the most blatant projection I've ever seen.

Definitely a keeper.

[pacalo]

146. Double standards, too.

[oldhippie]

180. I think those will be well used ......

Thank you.

[pacalo]

182. They'll come in handy...

From what I understand, this has been going on for years & years & years. It wasn't until DU3 & the Meta forum that I began learning the personalities. Whining is normalcy for some & the baiting is going to continue on & on & on.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

212. Bravo! Good response. nt

[RiffRandell]

178. Wish I could rec this a million times.

Great post!!!!!

[pacalo]

181. Hey, Riff!

I could have been more candid but we don't have a protected safe haven to share our armchair evaluations.

[BainsBane]

108. Sickening?

Tell me what exactly is so sickening?

[pacalo]

113. See #110.

[840high]

112. I'm a woman and don't

object to their swimsuit issue.

[pacalo]

114. Thank you 840...

Glad to meet someone who isn't a passenger on the mothership.

[840high]

115. In fact I'll send

a copy to my sweetie. He'll enjoy it.

[pacalo]

117. I'm the same way with my husband.

[Logical]

119. LOL, someone alerted this....and lost 6-0......

On Sun Feb 16, 2014, 10:18 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Duh. SI has always put female athletes on the cover!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4512621

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Trolling a positive thread and calling the OP and her thread "sickening." Below she continues to make hostile remarks that honoring female athletes is somehow "victimization." Weirdly hostile outburst.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Feb 16, 2014, 10:36 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think this post is 100% correct! Alerting to remove something you disagree with is not the purpose of alerts!
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sickening might be over the top if directed at an individual, but if it's just describing how it makes the poster feel, then I vote to leave it.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see this thread's opening as a positive but more a calling out to those that are not irate enough over the SI swimsuit issue and another in a long line of threads on this that are created to continue conflicts from previous threads. Honestly BainsBane came across as meaner, more hostile in that exchange than picalo. I wouldn't of alerted on either and will be glad when this latest poutrage ends. BTW I'm female and would love to see parity for women athletes on all levels including the covers of SI.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[one_voice]

123. Good...

6-0 means no alert abilities for 24hrs. This never should have been alerted on, it's a prime example of abusing the alert/jury system to shut down opinions you don't like.

Excellent jury result.

[pacalo]

139. Stay tuned, one voice...

A new sock could be appearing in this thread any moment now to skirt around DU rules.

[pacalo]

137. Thanks, Logical...

& thanks, also, to the jury who all saw the alert for what it was.

[Logical]

138. Too many times it is because they just don't like the post. nt

[pacalo]

147. Sorry if that's happened to you in the past.

[LadyHawkAZ]

128. The People magazine annual issue is OK though

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018520169

[tammywammy]

129. LOL!

Funny!!

[pacalo]

133. Good one!

Male objectification!1!

[opiate69]

135. Ha!

Nice catch......

"I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.... "

[RiffRandell]

156. Nice find!

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

185. I doubt the OP knows or cares a fig about Sports Illustrated....

....other than it's a tired once a year talking point for her to rail about.

She doesn't know who Hannah Teter, Julie Chu, or Mikaela Shiffrin is, doesn't care, and certainly wouldn't read any of the great articles SI has written about them.

[pacalo]

190. It's embarrassingly stupid to create an OP that is so clueless about the topic.

Sports Illustrated is about sports. It's in the title, right? So if the magazine wanted to honor women, they would focus on some of the great female athletes. This is what an SI cover might look like in a world without sexism, (blah, blah, nothing but soapbox blah) if they published for an audience that valued women for what they accomplish in sports.

Other DUers picked up on the cluelessness of it & posted SI covers of female athletes throughout the thread.

I'm embarrassed for the OP.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

98. great post, BB Thank You!

[BainsBane]

100. You're welcome

and thanks for your continued support!

[Nye Bevan]

109. .

[Nanjing to Seoul]

116. Don't like the swimsuit issue. . .don't buy it. Simple and easy.

[pipoman]

118. I'm not sure i get it..

These women look like women, and the SI model looks like 'little boys'?

[BainsBane]

122. These are athletes

It's about what they accomplish, not what they look like. SI is a magazine devoted to sports, so I suggested a cover full of top athletes. It has nothing to do with their appearance.

[TNNurse]

120. So many wonderful choices

For a cover. An individual? A team? A collage or gallery?

[BainsBane]

124. I am totally blown away by the extreme winter athletes

The snowboarders and freestyle ski jumpers. They are amazing, completely fearless. They are also super fun to watch!

[Waiting For Everyman]

130. What's lacking in the swimsuit issue cover is not only women athletes

but SWIMSUITS. It used to be one of the places to see the better suits in a given year. But not anymore.

So even on a fashion level, now, it fails. There's nothing to it but soft porn, period.

[Nye Bevan]

140. So "soft porn" is now "women in bathing suits"?

I always thought it was female nudity with simulated sex. I guess I'm behind the times.

[Waiting For Everyman]

143. That's my point, they aren't wearing bathing suits.

They're wearing half of a suit which mostly isn't there, and about half of what is there has disappeared up their butt.

To illustrate my point... if those three suits were on a store web page of several dozen, how many people could pick out those three? I'll bet very few could do it, because there's almost nothing to recognize.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

136. OMG yes, yes and yes. That's what it needs to look like...

rather than looking like an issue of Playboy or Penthouse.

[BainsBane]

158. Imagine that someone above referred to this OP as "sickening"

and promoting "victimization."

[toby jo]

161. Thanks, Bains.

I remember about 15 years ago when I was training for triathalons and was always in the gym or hunting for an edge, I got a magazine called 'womens sports', or something like that. It was great, for awhile. Then they got bought out by Conde Nast, and it sucked. The covers turned into thin , toneless models, and the ads turned into beauty product lines. They started using models for their story lines, e.g. workouts for a better burn, instead of the real thing.

No more beautiful, powerful , hard females bods for inspiration.

It produced alot of angry letters. I gave up my subscription.

They should call it their "Sports Illustrated Titty Issue, 'for you and your hard-on' ", and give us all a break.

[BainsBane]

162. So cool you were a tirathalete

Very impressive. I'm glad you like the thread.

[bigwillq]

163. SI has had these covers before.

And they will again.

[MO_Moderate]

164. Beauty deserves as much honor as anything else

Diving issue? You put the guy doing the Triple Lindy on the cover, even though most can't do it.
NASCAR issue? You put the person who can win Talladega, even though most couldn't.
Women's SWIMSUIT issue? Yep, you put the women who look great in swimsuits on the cover.
There is nothing wrong with beauty.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

210. Modeling a swimsuit is not a sport.

(Last time I looked it up, anyway).

[MO_Moderate]

219. That's probably why they call it the 'Swimsuit' issue

[Sarah Ibarruri]

220. Then it belongs in a fashion magazine, or better yet, a porn mag

Not in a Sports magazine called SPORTS illustrated. Now, if it were called, WOMEN'S SEX Illustrated, whole nother story.

[opiate69]

221. Well... I guess somebody better email Sports Illustrated...

And let them know straight away that Sarah Ibarruri has been named supreme arbiter of journalism and publishing of the world, and she has henceforth declared there is to be no deviation from a publications regular reporting without prior approval, in triplicate and notarized by the office of supreme arbiter.
#Benny%2520Hill%2520salute

[Sarah Ibarruri]

222. ? Porn will continue on, despite what I say, but at least lib guys...

have respect for women that pornographers do not. The other males, the ones that adore degrading women, the other festering white meat in other words, are right wingnuts.

[opiate69]

223. So that cover is porn?

Sorry.. I don't play the whole "I'm more liberal than you" game with anonymous internet yahoos.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

224. You betcha it's soft porn. And just the fact that you're arguing this with me...

shows me that you don't care a rat's ass if women feel humiliated.

[elias7]

167. I think you're stretching on this one

The magazine publishes the kind of pictures you posted all the time, whether they be on the cover or on the inside. It does in fact glorify fierce woman more than most magazines in the world. I don't get SI but you could pick on any publication for not conforming the most progressive of norms 1 week out of 50.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

171. The day I see the Swimsuit Issue consist of male models modeling swimwear on Sports Illustrated...

is the day I'll believe that.

[theboss]

204. Who would buy that?

That's sort of the problem, isn't it?

Kate Upton's boobs sell magazines. David Beckham's abs....maybe not so much.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

205. I see your point. That said, why do men buy stuff like that?

I mean, I know men like women, but women like men too, and yet...