Reading the Sunday newspaper over a coffee is an indulgence I absolutely love.  Not being an avid sports fan, I usually give the sports section a miss.  But last Sunday I picked up the Sunday Star Times sports section, because one of the issues I discuss with girls through my work with Enlighten Education is how the media portray women in sport.  I had read research on the media’s treatment of women’s sport but I was optimistic that surely the situation couldn’t be quite that bad.

So I opened the 16-page sports section and started flicking through.  Men’s rugby, men’s soccer, men’s rugby, men racing cars, men’s rugby, boys’ soccer, men’s rugby. “Where are the women?! ”  I spluttered loudly, spilling my coffee in indignation.  Finally – page 14, women got a full-page devoted to them.  Yes, a full page feature article on the US Open Women’s Tennis.

But don’t start celebrating - the headline?

And beneath the atrocious headline? Photos of five of the top women in the US Open, followed by a one-word description - go on; I invite you read this out loud using your best Grammy awards nominee voice:

• Contestant: Ana Ivanovic
• Bitchiness: Elena Baltacha
• Entertainer: Jelena Jankovic
• Nicest: Caroline Wozniacki
• Soviet Tank: Svetlana Kuznetsova.

After throwing the rest of my coffee across the room (OK, that’s dramatic licence), I started to read the article, which proceeded to illuminate for me why each of these sportswomen were awarded their titles above.

I soon realised that Ivanovic was not awarded the Contestant title for her tennis prowess – oh no:
“Who’s the prettiest?” she says,  buttering a roll, her slim wrist holding up a Rolex watch the size of a child’s fist. “Who’s the most popular, the most fashionable, who’s getting the most coverage?” She smiles sorrowfully to acknowledge that, when it comes to these contests, she tends to do quite well.”
Ivanovic wins the ‘Contestant’ award because she is winning the beauty and popularity contests.

The Bitchiness award seems to have stemmed from Elena Baltacha's comment:
“I wouldn’t go out of my way to start a fight, but if I feel someone has done or said something on purpose, then I will react. I wouldn’t just take it, I would defend myself.”
One comment seems justification enough to generalise a whole derogatory personality trait.

After being described as a “truculent teen”, Jelena Jankovic is awarded  the ‘Entertainer’ trophy after stating:
 “We are entertainers, as well, on court, in our own sporty way... We entertain the fans, they pay money to watch us play.  It’s nice to see girls who are feminine, who dress nice.  Maybe in the past there were only a couple of players like that, but now players pay more attention to it. I was one of those painting my nails different colours and matching them to my dress. If you are in a nice dress you can play better, feel better. More comfortable and confident”.  
This statement sounds as though it comes straight off a Sporty Bratz doll packaging.

Nicest:
Despite being the number one seed for this event, Caroline Wozniacki gets only the briefest of mentions:
“Denmark’s Caroline Wozniacki... is one of the nicest in the top 10”. 
Because really, what interest would there be in a ‘nice’ tennis player when there are beauties and bitches to discuss?  None whatsoever it seems.

Soviet Tank:
And Russian Svetlana Kuznetsova obviously doesn’t live up to the sexiness-factor necessary for women to play in the US Open, taking out the ‘Soviet Tank’ award.

To further my dismay, this derogatory and juvenile article was written by a woman.  Numerous quotes are scattered throughout this Sunday Star Times article that portray the women as simpering bimbo fashionista bitches. Strangely enough, despite not once mentioning anything about any talent any of the tennis players have, the journalist at times seems to be trying to take a feminist perspective regarding the discrimination that abounds in the women’s tennis circuit.   Although she clarifies that the issue is definitely “not the most pressing in feminism today.”  In her poem ‘Sisterhood’, Kate Wilson makes the point that it is often women who are propagating the sexualisation and objectification of women. 

The journalist’s claim that most of the world’s top female tennis players consider their on-court fashion their primary source of "empowerment" is a ridiculous statement. What research is she basing this on? Whether it’s “brilliant exploitation of a sexist media” or “a complete sellout” this journalist is part of it.

The article portrays the world’s top tennis players as if they were Bratz dolls, characters in an imaginary world of bling and beauty, the tennis a mere hobby on the side.  In fact, I checked in on the Bratz website this morning, and realised that The Sunday Star Times article was just a grown-up version of Bratz Chatz. Let me share with you this morning’s inspiring Bratz Chatz:

(Note to the uninitiated: Bratz dolls are marketed at girls age 2 – 11.  There are five scantily clad, heavily made-up Bratz dolls, each with their own ‘personality’ and “passion for fashion”. This is the chat that occurred between the doll characters this morning)

Sasha: Dancing is sooo much easier for me than sports. I love watching Cloe play [tennis] but it is so hard for me in gym. I have to sing to get through it!
Jade: Yeah, I would much rather watch sports than play them but I get plenty of exercise walking around the mall every weekend, lol!
Yasmin: Cloe convinced me to play tennis with her and I totally fell in front of Cloe’s very cute coach. I don’t know how she focuses on the game!
Cloe: See? Good things come to those who work out! Btw, Yas was much better at tennis than she lets on. She’s got a mega strong serve.
Sasha: Enough about the game! Who’s this new coach?? I think it’s time to set up a group hang for Cloe’s next match so we can scope out the guy!
Cloe: Everybody chill! My tennis coach is awesome, he’s on the team at school, and we are JUST FRIENDS!! But I wouldn’t mind a cute outfit to wear, tee hee.
Jade:  Totally! And I’ll make her a new outfit because the last time I watched her play she was in ratty old sweats. So NOT cute!
Yasmin:  Ooh, I smell a makeover in the air! Not that our pal needs a makeover, since she’s cute enough on her own. Just a cool new look.

So our young girls play make believe with sexy fashionista bimbos, and the media continues the conversation for our real life tennis heroes.

Thank you Sunday Star Times, you made my search for discriminatory reporting of sport far too easy and time-efficient.  I am horrified that it is 2010 and demeaning and offensive drivel like this is the only mention of sportswomen in New Zealand’s biggest newspaper of the week. I am heartened only by the fact that it was not a New Zealand journalist. Yet  why the need to import this from the UK?

I hope you will join me in emailing your dismay to the Sunday Star Times editor - [email protected].

(Note: I was unable to access a free version of this article that was written online, but it appears to be an edited version of an article that appeared in the Guardian UK on 19/06/10.)

And while you are here check out this fantastic poem that covers a number of points raised in this post, and gives a call to action to all women:

This is an extraordinarily powerful poetry performance by Katie Makkai defining the word "pretty", and the pressures faced by girls and women to define themselves by a narrow definition of "pretty".

I love that it is calling for change and that it is raising awareness of the messages that mothers (and women in general) are passing on to their daughters. And the call to action at the end, a vow to her own 'someday- daughter' gave me goosebumps and tears.

I invite you to watch the video below.

Dressed in a slinky red evening gown with long blonde hair, lengthy dark eye-lashes, sultry eyes and immaculate make up, Sasha Bennington looks every bit the glamour model ready to strut down the catwalk or pose for a fashion magazine cover.   But Sasha is eleven; strip away the makeup and the sexy clothes, she is a little girl lost. 

Following on from Tuesday's 'Baby Beauty Queens' on 60 Minutes, last night 20/20 featured young Sasha and her family (from Manchester, UK).  They were interviewed about Sasha’s “career” and their aspirations for her. It was a disturbing episode.  With hundreds of dollars spent on her beauty regime every month, Sasha’s mother dreams of her daughter's future celebrity status – “I want Sasha to get every opportunity she can”.   She seems to pay her daughter the ultimate compliment as she describes her looking “like one of those little Cindy dolls you play with”.

After Sasha's mother described her daughter as confident and talented, when asked to describe herself, Sasha says “Three words to describe myself? – pretty, blonde, dumb... I am stupid”, followed by inane laughing of mother and daughter.  Sasha later points out that “I don’t need a brain”.

I acknowledge that such “current events” TV shows do often highlight the freaks and absurdities in our society, and I predict that the overwhelming majority of people who viewed this in NZ last night would share my views.  Examples such as Sasha Bennington are the extreme: However, for many girls and young women growing up today, there is a similar pressure to achieve the looks and body of the models that surround us in magazines, TVs and billboards.

It seems in many circles, the backlash against beauty contests, begun by the feminists in the 70s has well and truly turned full-circle.  With our society obsessed with reality TV shows, offering the average punter their chance of “fame” and “making it”, is it any wonder that we are now seeing a resurgence in the popularity of beauty contests? For parents, they are the ideal training ground for such shows as Next Top Model, Idol etc.  Sasha's take on it: “Like, 20 years ago, people cared about careers and stuff, but now it’s what you look like”.

Such child beauty contests have not made it to NZ (that I am aware of), but a part of me thinks it is only a matter of time.  I hope I am wrong.

In the words of Kahlil Gibran, “beauty is not in the face; beauty is a light in the heart”.  Child beauty pageants and all that surround them kill that light in the heart. 

I was recently at a ‘style workshop’ and had been volunteered as one of the models to be 'made up' in front of an audience of business women – the goal was for me to be prepared (hair, makeup, clothes...) for a photographer to take some professional photos of me.  I don’t consider myself very ‘stylish’ so it was a real treat!  

The presenter discussed having professional photos taken and the process of getting ready for them.  She then added that with the wonders of photoshop, anything that wasn’t perfect could be fixed up.  Until that moment, I hadn't ever considered photoshopping my own image. It was something that  was done to celebrities and models. As I sat on the stage and looked at my image in the mirror, I suddenly saw the bags under the eyes, the crooked eyebrow...  Hmmmm.

The high-profile presenter was 50-ish, but joked that with the wonders of photoshop, she hadn’t really aged in the past 10 years and acknowledged that her publicity photos are a far cry from herself in ‘real life’.  It got me thinking.  

• Why does a highly successful business woman, widely touted as an inspiration to women all over the country, and indeed a business mentor to many women herself, need her publicity photos to be photoshopped?  She is a beautiful woman in her own right - lovely skin, slim, radiant and a very funky hairstyle.
• Do her male equivalents also have photoshopped images?
• Does having a photoshopped image, that takes at least 10 years off her real age, contribute to her success? Would her success be affected if she had a ‘real’ photo?
• Is it now widely accepted that professional photos are photoshopped?
  

I am still pondering these questions. I would love to hear your thoughts.
Do you have your image photoshopped? Why or why not?

(PS: I have not ever had photos of me digitally altered. The main photo on my homepage is me complete with my smile-lines, forehead-creases and spots.  But these are what make me, me. I have a red spot above my left eye which appeared in the first month of my pregnancy with my son (which resembles a pimple permanently threatening to break out... charming).   It bugged me at first and I was assured it was hormonal and would disappear after the birth. Three years on, it has shown no sign of departing: but I like it. It is another mark on the journey of my life.)  

Last week a group of 9 & 10 year old girls gyrating their way through a sexy dance performance horrified many, me included. 

The girls are obviously talented dancers, but the sexy skimpy black lacy outfits combined with the provacative dance moves amount to a degrading and totally inappropriate performance.

Facing widespread criticism, the girls parents have defended their daughters' performance:

"The costumes are designed for movement and to show bodylines..."

This interview makes the whole episode that much sadder for me.  The parents seem to have missed the point entirely.  As Danielle Miller, in the clip below points out, these girls are actually more scantily clad than Beyonce was in the original music video. 

I think one issue that this interview with the parents raises is how public our lives have become.  Whereever your children are, whatever they are doing, there is a chance that their activities are being videoed and that this video could end up on the world wide web.

If these girls had performed this dance a few years ago, it's highly unlikely anyone except the attendees would ever have seen it. However, it's 2010 and someone videoed the performance, put on YouTube and it went viral - it's now been viewed over 2 million times.   The saturation of technology in our lives and the ease at which information can be spread across the world means that as parents we have to be ever more vigilant about protecting our children against exploitation.

Thanks to Dannielle Miller for pointing me to this video.  A powerful statement on the media's portrayal of women.  It sent chills down my spine and tears to my eyes.

I love playing dress-ups; putting on a costume and becoming someone else for a while.  As a girl, I remember finding great delight stomping round the house in Mum’s high-heels, her flowery skirts billowing up under my arms and beads trailing on the floor.  Sometimes we’d pull on her old swimsuits and sarongs and pretend to be ladies at the beach.  We were playing: we knew that those clothes weren’t little girls’ clothes.  

But the line between women’s fashion and girls fashion is blurred these days as the fashion industry has realised that young children are ripe targets for their marketing.  The ‘girls’ fashion’ industry has boomed and has resulted in girls’ fashion simply being smaller sized versions of what teenagers and women are wearing.  At face value, this doesn’t seem something we need to be concerned about.  However when this means that lacy lingerie, sexy jeans and high heels are now seen in the ‘girls’ clothes section, I feel horrified.   

Yesterday, UK clothing chain store Primark withdrew from sale its range of padded bikini tops for girls as young as seven, following widespread criticism and outrage. The $4 bikini sets have been available in candy pink with gold stars and black with white polka dots.  (Side note: Why do pre-pubescent girls need to wear bikinis anyway? In Europe I noticed most girls in similar swimming attire as boys until puberty – this made sense to me).

Primark has apologised to customers for "causing offence" and said it would donate profits to a children's charity.  The company refused to discuss the bikini's padding but an anonymous source “familiar with the product said the extra fabric was designed to preserve a girl's modesty and prevent any signs of a developing breast from showing through”.  ‘Preserve a girl’s modesty’!!!  What an oxymoron. By tying a padded bra on them? Need I say more. Even more saddening, this comment furthers the attitude that somehow girls developing bodies are somehow shameful.

A number of UK politicians have condemned Primark for stocking such a bikini and several people have referred to the bikini as the “paedo-bikini.”    But this phrase seems to be implicating girls for the behaviour of paedophiles, which in turn minimises the blame on the perpetrator.  Girls and the clothes they wear are not to blame for paedophilia: paedophiles are to blame for paedophilia.

As the American Psychological Association (2007) report on the sexualisation of girls stated, "If girls purchase - or ask their parents to purchase - products and clothes designed to make them look physically appealing and sexy, and if they style their identities after the sexy celebrities who populate their cultural landscape, they are, in effect, sexualising themselves."

Mumsnet (UK) have launched a Let Girls Be Girls campaign.  This campaign asks retailers to pledge not to sell products that prematurely sexualise children.  They have an excellent list of reasons why we all should be worried about the sexualisation of girls clothing:

• It introduces children to the world of adult sexuality, when elsewhere we are rightly encouraging them to resist the pressure to become sexually active at a young age

• It tells girls that the most important quality they need is 'sexiness' and that female sexuality is all about pleasing others

• It encourages a culture in which children are viewed as sexually available

What a worthy campaign. Perhaps we need a similar one here in New Zealand?  Both Jay Jays and Cotton On have had clothing lines withdrawn after public outcry.  Recently I saw a young girl (age 10-ish) in a white t-shirt with the play boy bunny plastered across her prepubescent chest. And I sadly noted that even 'My Little Pony' has sexy 'come hither' over-the-top eye makeup. (Please comment on examples of sexualised clothing produced for children that you are aware of).

The upside to the Primark bikini debacle is that the  media outrage has been universal. No one is suggesting that on any level are these bikinis acceptable.   Let's take this opportunity to  take a stand against the companies marketing sexualised clothing. On a personal level let's ensure that we all consciously clothe our children: they are children and they don't deserve to be sexualised.