To the Editor:
I would like to thank Stephen Marth for writing his piece, "Rite of Passage" in which he describes "becoming a man" after viewing nearly nude women in Sports Illustrated. I could not have done a better job of demonstrating the problems with how the sexes relate to each other.
Mr. Marth states, "Little Johnny doesn't need to kiss Sally Sue under the monkey bars at the playground anymore, considering he has taken it to the next level with his new romantic interest, Tyra Banks." Indeed, who needs real women when the commoditized version is so readily available? The implication is clear: to come of age, 50% of the population learns to dehumanize the other 50% in culturally acceptable terms. I say dehumanize, because that interaction was not with a woman. It was with a product masquerading as one. This is a product that "defines" beauty and womanness in a marketable way, a product that girls are supposed to aspire to, and to which boys aspire to desire in order to become "a Man." Never mind gay teenage boys, who are likely less than drawn to that issue. I guess they cannot become "men." That issue of SI is a celebration of the male gaze, the idea that it is normal to stare at, objectify, and sexualize women. We celebrate Kate Moss more than Sally Ride, Tyra Banks more than Margaret Thatcher, and few remember who Anna Kournikova's partner was in her three doubles championships. SI gives minimal attention to women's sports, certainly not in proportion to the coverage they give men. Until the swimsuit edition, that is.
Then, these athletes are not featured because they are great athletes, but because they are hot.
Mr. Marth treats the subject as the natural male adolescence. Why should it be? He illustrates a scene of fathers passing on the SI swimsuit edition to their sons, because it is "tasteful" and does not have nudity. I cannot think of any mothers I know giving their daughters pictures of nearly naked bodybuilders, but even if there were, it is not any better. We define "tasteful" in a very strange way. SI is "tasteful" by not showing nudity, though it still objectifies the photographed. Nudity is not inherently tasteless. Take for instance, the nudity in Renaissance art, paintings and the statues David or Venus: these are not meant as sexual objects, and the subjects are generally treated respectfully. You would be hard pressed to find someone describing David or nudes in the Albright Knox as "Steamy," but that is precisely how SI's swimsuit edition is marketed. It is for consumption, not appreciation.
I am not criticizing awareness of sexuality. I am not criticizing men - there are many women who act as if this is business as usual.
I'm not criticizing Mr. Marth. I doubt it was his intention to degrade women, perhaps he did not realize any better. I am not criticizing exploring one's sexual awareness: there are lots of ways to explore one's sexuality that does not require dehumanizing others. As far as I am concerned, go have fun, and lots of it, if that is your cup of tea. I am critiquing a way of relating to each other that disregards our human potential. It an issue of respect between the sexes. Why consume each other, instead of value each other? Why objectify each other? I would rather my future children come of age by showing Sally Sue or Little Johnny some affection than gawking at the next generation's Tyra Banks.
Thank you for your time,
Christine Slocum
Teaching Assistant, Diversity Advocates
