Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Best Thing in the Paper Today


Stopping at a newsstand on my way home to pick this up and look at/discuss this with Miss M. 

What do you all think of the Post article?


Oct. 19th, 2011 05:59 pm (UTC)
I'm not sure what the writer of the piece is trying to say. Her use of words such as "slab", "blocky jock" and "androgynous" may be trying to question the sort of dismissive language (because Lord forbid we should be any doubt who is female and who is male) used of sportswomen whose talents give their bodies power and whose sports need them to use that power (unlike petite little figure skaters).
But it reads as though she buys into the assumption that those bodies simply are unfeminine, unsexy, and the unfairness lies in trying to dress them up as if they were. Surely the question is "why does it always matter if a woman is 'sexy'?"
As for her apparent surprise that an athlete isn't necessarily an instinctive dancer, hasn't she heard of muscle memory? It takes a lot of time and practice to build a fluency in dance routines just as much as excellence in sport. In addition the skills of a goalkeeper - hand-eye co-ordination, bursts of power and accuracy, quick reflexes, spatial awareness in a limited and defined space - are surely very different to those needed in dance.
Dance is to some extent about presentation, yes (hence, one assumes, the elaborate costumes in Irish dance)- and the TV shows are likely to be even more superficial; it's not like taking an exam or a Feis where experts take pride in judging on skill, rhythym and feel for the music - the execs have to keep an eye out for ad revenues and the majority of viewers won't know about dance. But again, why do we always have to deal with stereotypes in a way that appeases them?