Interrogating the Presentation of Gender in Sports Advertising

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN_5myhJmlM

     This commercial aired on Tuesday, October 21st, during Game 1 of the 2014 World Series. It is unique compared to the majority of sports commercials as it focuses entirely on a female athlete, however underlying gendered messages become apparent when it is analyzed critically. The first two images of Mo'ne do not identify her as a female as she is shown from far away and behind, however her gender is identified as soon as she begins talking. This was most likely done to surprise viewers and ultimately make a greater impact in the fight for gender equality in sports as the majority of people were expecting the commercial to be about young male baseball players, but instead are told the inspirational story of a 13-year-old girl. In a 20 second span of this minute long commercial, she mentions being a girl in some regard four times because that evidently is the focus of this commercial, which is reinforced at the end when this message appears on screen, "Chevrolet celebrates Mo'ne Davis and those who remind us that anything is possible."
     Although this commercial seeks to inspire viewers both young and old, which are also words that come out of Mo'ne's mouth, gendered messages are exposed when the material, presentation and commentary are analyzed. Commercials with men tend to focus on physical aggression as seen in the numerous ones showing men hard at work and sweating, while women's tend to focus more on the beauty of any game (Kristiansen, 2014, pg. 17). This trend is definitely apparent in this commercial as Mo'ne only discusses how hard she works at multiple different sports, while she is only shown actually doing athletic activity in brief actions - half court shot, hitting a ball of a tee, and throwing a fast ball. The reliance on her commentary to express her physical prowess is an indication of the idea that women cannot exhibit athletic competence solely based on performance. In commercials focused on male athletes, quite the opposite is observed as they do not have to discuss their athletic competence because in most cases it is already known and then it is reinforced when shown scoring a touchdown, hitting a home run, etc.
     Another gendered message displayed in this commercial is the idea of hyper-femininity. She by no means is stylized to the same extreme as other female athletes several years her senior, however she is still presented in a way meant to be perceived as more attractive. Currently, the power and presence of female athletes are reframed in the media in a way that will be found heterosexually appealing because the male audience is the most important in sport (Kristiansen, 2014, pg. 19). In Mo'ne's case, she is made out to be more "appealing" with the addition of eye makeup and straighten hair that is left down the entirety of the commercial. This contradicts her actual on-field presentation where she was seen during the 2014 Little League World Series with her hair pulled back and in braids. Unfortunately, this feminized stylization of Mo'ne undermines the ad's intent for gender equality because research has found that coverage highlighting or enhancing a female athlete's attractiveness, actually generates the perception that she is less talented, athletic and heroic than athlete's whose athleticism receives more attention (Daniels, 2011). Thankfully she was not extremely hyper-feminized, which allows the public to potentially receive her as a heroic female athlete.
     For young people watching this commercial, Mo'ne will most likely be seen as a role model due to her influence and success in the male dominated Little League baseball organization. However, due to the reliance on her commentary to portray her athletic competence, instead of showing her in action, may cause young athletes to focus on the end result and stardom as opposed to the hard work it takes to become an elite athlete.

Reference List

Daniels, E., & Wartena, H. (2011). Athlete or Sex Symbol: What Boys Think of Media       Representations of Female Athletes. Sex Roles, 65(7/8), 566-579. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9959-7

Kristiansen, E., Broch, T. B., & Pedersen, P. M. (2014). Negotiating Gender in Professional Soccer: An Analysis of Female Footballers in the United States. Choregia, 10(1), 5-27.

Exploring the Hegemonic Gendering process

     Jennifer Aniston is a woman who comes to mind when I think of an example of an ideal woman as far as the dominant US societal norms go. For two decades she has dominated the Hollywood scene due to her looks and personality. Her blonde hair, blue eyes, tan skin, good smile and slim figure distinguishes her as a beautiful individual in the eye's of the American majority. Additionally, her personality is known by those who pay some sort of attention to celebrity gossip as sweet, caring and genuine - at least that is how I have perceived her through interviews. Her young adulthood was certainly her prime, however she is still a highly sought after actress, especially as she strives to redefine herself as an actress and a person. The most recent news I have seen about her have been about her fitness and healthy eating habits, which she is sharing with Americans who are listening because she is iconic in the US. 

     My idea as to how a real/ideal man and woman is supposed to look, behave and be like was largely generated via mass media consumption. Everywhere I look, there are pictures of slim, beautiful, young women and chiseled, well-groomed, young men, reestablishing the look of dominant US societal norms. Interviews, TV shows, and magazine articles support those notions and take them to another degree because they introduce what the American majority considers ideal behavior and personality. Through the mass media, I have learned that it celebrities are kept in the best light when they kept their opinions to themselves regarding racy material and also when they avoid any drastic changes to their physical appearances. This is because they are supposed to be pleasing to the public's eye, but in reality people have opinions and preferences that might not agree with the large majority.

     This is a picture of my older brother AJ and he without a doubt is who I think of when asked to give an example of a real or ideal man. He is my biggest role model due to the way he looks at life, treats people, and carries out his action. By no means does he match dominant US societal norms, but in my eyes he is the greatest person I know. My brother was blessed with good looks, but I have noticed that as he matures, he relies less and less upon them and more upon how intellectual he is. My version of a real/ideal man challenges the societal norms probably because I have known my brother for my entire life; I have seen him grow and vice versa, while also influencing each other's upbringings and seeing that growth has allowed me to appreciate the confident, passionate and awesome man he is now. AJ's ability to articulate and express his opinions in a non-imposing manner sets him apart from other people I have come across, which makes me view him as even more real and ideal, however that behavior is definitely frowned upon in most societal settings. 

Interrogating inequalities in Sports Media: Examining gender representation in Sports Illustrated

     Thus far in 2014, Sports Illustrated has published 87 magazine covers, of which, women are the focus in only six. Although there are two covers that do not represent either gender, but rather historic events such as the one-year anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombing and the 60-year anniversary of Sports Illustrated, the remaining 79 covers establish men as centerpieces (Sports Illustrated, 2014). After analyzing this year's covers, a few of the image's qualities became trends that distinguished men from women and the ideas surrounding each gender in sport. Not included in this count on Sports Illustrated's website is the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 2014, as that issue has a webpage all to itself due to the popularity and message it conveys. It is important to know that Sports Illustrated does not include images of men in swimsuits, but rather focuses solely on women in risqué swimsuits. Why that edition is even in existence for a sports magazine is questionable, but occasionally female athletes appear in it and ultimately create a broader imbalance of gender equality in sports media.
     The only time a male exposes an abnormal amount of skin on a cover is when 49'er quarterback, Colin Kaepernick, appears in a cropped t-shirt with a 6-pack (of abs) displayed (Sports Illustrated, 2014). Gaining on-field popularity since the 2012 season, Kaepernick's popularity with society and the media has exploded due to his appearance, which has made him somewhat of a sex symbol. Johnny "Football" Manziel and Kobe Bryant are two other notable male athletes whose appearance on their covers appear stylized both in fashion and hair/makeup, which parallels the off-field focus of those specific issues (Sports Illustrated, 2014). On the other hand, apart from Little League baseball's Mo'ne Davis who was the only female athlete shown in action, every female on a cover was highly dressed and done up, suggesting that their appearance is as important as their role in sports. Additionally, 5 out of 6 women appear smiling compared to the 12 out of 79 men, or groups of men, photographed while smiling. In 19 out of 31 staged photos, males are displayed with an aggressively stern face or a smirk rather than a smile, which suggests the constant competitiveness male athletes possess and their intellectual prowess over counterparts, respectively (Sports Illustrated, 2014).
     The majority of both genders are shown in uniform, which upholds the idea that the most important aspect of these individuals is their role in sport and this finding is congruent with recent research conducted on the presentation of athletes, in or out of uniform in collegiate sports catalogs, which found that there is not a significant statistical difference between the genders (Buyssee, 2013). However, what exactly they appear to be doing in those uniforms differs greatly. Professional baseball, football, basketball, hockey, golf, NASCAR, soccer and ski athletes, as well as collegiate football and basketball men are captured in action 48 out of 79 covers featuring male athletes. For females, the 1 out of 6 covers showing an athlete in action sharply contrasts that trend, which again speaks to the current notion of where genders belong (Sports Illustrated, 2014). This finding is supported by the same study mentioned before, as it found, "[…] men are significantly more likely to be portrayed as competent athletes than women" (Buysse, 2013).
     The consequences of these findings are obvious; as women continue to seek equality in sports, the mass media in undermining the revolution and is doing so because female athletes agree to present themselves in the expected manner. These findings support existing academic research on the subject, as well as the social norms the US mass media conveys to the public.

Reference List

Buysse, J., & Wolter, S. (2013). Gender Representation in 2010 NCAA Division I Media Guides: The      Battle for Equity was only Temporarily Won.Journal Of Issues In Intercollegiate Athletics, 61-21.

2014 Sports Illustrated Covers. (n.d.). Retrieved October 9, 2014, from http://www.si.com/more-sports/photos/2014/06/18/si-covers-2014#87

Reflecting on the Shame of College Sports

     The NCAA is a ruling body whose mission is to provide a fair playing field for amateur student-athletes across the board by enforcing rules pertaining to conferences, universities, coaches, alumni, current student-athletes, and their fans. It claims commitment and responsibility to give its student-athletes the chance to not only perform collegiately, but also plan for a future on or off the field. Unfortunately, despite the claim of this mission, the NCAA is often accused of not adhering to its own goals at the expense of student-athletes in most situations. The NCAA was created to serve the student-athlete, however when under fire in court, the NCAA crushes the very student-athletes who support its industry because it is determined to maintain the utmost amount of power and control due to the amount of money college sports generate annually (Branch, 2011). The billions of dollars student-athletes in Big-Time College sports generate for the NCAA, their universities, and private companies has caused much debate in recent years because the players are not earning any money for themselves, despite the amount of work they put in to their sports.
     However, when suggested that Big-Time student-athletes should get paid, the NCAA immediately turns down the very thought because that would remove the "amateur" status of its participants, which allows them to profit vast amounts of money. The terms "amateurism" and "student-athlete" are of critical importance to the NCAA because time and time again, it is able to win court trials based upon the ideas those words convey. The ambiguity of "student-athlete" supports the NCAA's prowess because as athletes, young men and women are not held to the same academic standards as their non-athlete counterparts, but because they are still students, they do not receive any sort of compensation for their labor (Branch, 2011). That notion has allowed the NCAA to avoid workmen's compensation for injuries athletes sustain while in college because the "student" aspect of a student-athlete insures that these young people are not employed by the university or NCAA and this is supported by the fact that NCAA athletes do not pay taxes on financial aid (Branch, 2011). This is a topic that I believe should be reconsidered because playing collegiate sports is a high risk commitment and although athletes must sign waivers acknowledging the potential risks, the NCAA should stay true to its word and do its best to help provide its current and former athletes with a successful future, which I think should include financial support for life-long injuries sustained while on the collegiate playing field. On the subject of signing documents, student-athletes must sign a contract that waives their right to any proceeds made from merchandise involving their name or picture, which undermines the NCAA's claim that there are no property rights involved in amateur, collegiate sport (Branch, 2011). The amateur title should not be removed from all NCAA athletes, however the 1% of student-atheltes in Big-Time sports who generate 90% of the NCAA's commission should be paid (Branch, 2011). The removal of amateur status from those athletes could seek to make amends to the current problem of unpaid labor, though the problem of commercialism in collegiate sports requires a solution far greater than paying a portion of NCAA athletes a fraction of the money they generate annually.
     Coaches, by nature, are accountable for their players and therefore should protect student-athletes and amateurism at all costs, but this is not the case as they too have been lured by the amount of money brought in by commercializing Big-Time College sports. Due to lucrative contracts, which have basketball coaches at top programs earning more that $4 million per year and football coaches earning more than $2 million annually in addition to benefits and bonuses, coaches have lost sight of what should be their main concern - the student-athletes - and are immune to oversight (Branch, 2011). That oversight causes coaches to see passed potentially rule breaking and/or illegal activity, which when caught, is all over the media. Recent scandals include the 2011 University of Miami football players who were caught accepting cash and services from a booster due to their role on the team, 2013 Rutger's men's basketball coach being fired after caught mentally and physically abusing players, the 2001 Georgia men's basketball coaches forging grades in order to maintain eligibility for players (Scandals, 2013). Though these scandals differ in nature, those very difference speak volumes to the gap between the reality of Big-Time College sports and the rhetoric of the NCAA mission statement. The NCAA claims to guide athletes on and off the field, as well as in the future, but these scandals are indicative of cheating and breaking laws because the main concern is not the athlete, it definitely is not the student-athlete's academic success, but instead it is all about winning championships and bringing home the most money.

Reference List

Branch, T. (2011). The shame of college sports. The Atlantic, (3). 80.

Most significant college sports scandals. (2013, September 13). Retrieved October 2, 2014.