If you’ve been paying attention to the U.S. Open, you’ve probably heard about the run of Melanie Oudin. Ranked 70th in the world, Oudin has nevertheless made a Cinderella run into the quarterfinals, knocking off world #4 Elena Dementieva and former U.S. Open champ Maria Sharapova in the process.
It’s a nice story, and probably foretells a bright future for the 17-year-old American. Hey, everyone loves to see an unseeded player make a run. And if the stories were about Oudin’s run and her future, that would be great.
Unfortunately, they aren’t. Instead, we’re getting stories like this:
For American women’s tennis, Oudin’s arrival has been a long time coming. Not since the 1970s, when Chris Evert rose to the top of the pro-tennis scene, has this country seen such a girl-next-door-style sweetheart in the sport, said Michelle Beadle. “From Day 1, I’ve never heard the Williams sisters referred to as sweethearts,” she added.
Yeah, neither have I. Funny, that. Because of course, all Venus and Serena Williams have done is go out and kick butt throughout their careers. Serena is currently ranked second in the world, Venus third. Serena has a career grand slam, and at one point held all four major titles. Venus merely has seven major titles, and has reached the finals of all four majors. Both have won Olympic gold medals and WTA championships. And in winnings, Serena ranks first all-time, followed by Venus.
Venus and Serena Williams are arguably the best two female tennis players of their generation, and certainly among the all-time greats. They’re gifted athletically, and both play with tenacity and skill on the court. And not for nothing, but both are attractive women, with compelling life stories and a dramatic rise from a meager upbringing to worldwide superstardom.
It’s hard to imagine why Melanie Oudin — a fine tennis player with a bright future, to be sure — would be viewed as America’s Sweetheart, while Venus and Serena Williams are not. Except, of course, for the fact that Oudin is a pretty, young, blonde white woman, and Venus and Serena Williams are African American.
You see, you can’t be America’s Sweetheart if you’re black. I mean, the very idea! After all, that would mean that African American women could be viewed as attractive, just like a white girl. And that is simply not considered acceptable.
Of course, in a fair world, “America’s Sweetheart” would be the last sobriquet a tennis player would aspire to. Chris Evert, after all, is second all-time in WTA titles in the Open era, trailing only the great Martina Navratalova (who also could never have been America’s Sweetheart, even if she hadn’t been from Czechoslovakia, for obvious reasons). And she has the best singles win-lost record of any player — male or female — in professional history, having won an astonishing 90 percent of her matches. Evert is one of the greatest players to play the game, and possibly the best. And yet we talk of her legacy as her 1970s period — because that’s when she was young and pretty, and dating Jimmy Connors, and that’s far more interesting than the fact that she won 18 major titles and four WTA championships over a 17-year professional career.
It’s disgusting. Because it demeans everyone — Oudin, the Williamses, Evert — everyone who’s playing the U.S. Open in a skirt, or ever has.
Don’t get me wrong — there’s nothing wrong with finding an athlete attractive. Tom Brady is lusted after by as many heterosexual women and gay men as Brady’s wife is by people of the opposite orientations. Finding someone attractive is fine and dandy. But reducing their accomplishments to their attractiveness reduces their value to that of an image. Serena and Venus Williams are superstars. Chris Evert is an all-time great. And Melanie Oudin is making a compelling run that we may look back on one day and see as the start of a fabulous career. And all of these women share something in common: they are all fabulous athletes. That should be the measure of their worth as tennis players. That, and nothing else.
(Via Jezebel)
Great post!
In my group of friends in the meatworld, we sometimes use the words “androsexual” and “gynosexual” to refer to “hetero women and gay men” and “hetero men and lesbians,” respectively.
Oooh! I like those. Scans more easily.
As a hetero man it’d seem less confusing to be gynophilic than gynosexual. The “hetero” modifier works with “sexual” because it implies an “other” to whom you are attracted. (“hetero” = “different,” and you need something to be different from.)
Pingback: On Tennis and Great White Sweethearts « This So-Called Post-Post-Racial Life
Melanie Oudin is 5’6″, 130 lbs. Chris Evert was — 5’6″, 130 lbs. Venus and Serena Williams are, respectively, 6’1″ and 160 lbs, and 5’10” and 150 lbs.
Surely part of the America’s sweetheart thing is that Oudin is small and of average build, while the Williams sisters are large and very strong. It’s easy for an average man – say 5’10” or so – to imagine himself dating Melanie Oudin, not so easy to imagine himself escorting Venus Williams.
I’m married to a tennis player, and having lived with her for 30+ years I’ve gotten a casual acquaintance with the game. From her viewpoint this young girl is a compelling story from the underdog makes good viewpoint. The Williams sisters are big-time, though – they’re what it’s all about.
Except, of course, for the fact that Oudin is a pretty, young, blonde white woman, and Venus and Serena Williams are African American.
Oh, that’s way too simplistic. Maybe race has something to do with it, but there are other more compelling factors. The Williams sisters play a very powerful and agressive game – and approach life the same way. Chris was a lot more private. When she did speak, she was not nearly as outspoken as the Williams sisters are (I’m not offering that as a value judgement of either on my part, BTW). And as far as their physical attributes go, I think that their muscular builds and their lack of prettiness (if you will) is more of a barrier than their race.
Being “America’s sweetheart” doesn’t mean a damn as far as appreciation for their game. OTOH, it’ll make a big difference in how much money she makes OFF the court ….
I live with people who are definitely into watching and playing tennis, so I get to absorb some of their familiarity with the sport. It does seem as though Oudin is “sweet”: she’s tiny and quick (as opposed to the “big babe” tennis of the Williams sisters, Sharapova, etc) and is always so very delighted whenever she wins something, which is heartwarming to watch. I also know that my tennis buff friends have specific dislikes towards the Williams sisters, namely that they don’t play the small tournaments as much (which among other things artificially reduces their rankings) and that they are ungracious in defeat.
Having said all that I would not be at all surprised if the Williams sisters are disliked by some at least partially because of their race. Common failings in white people are elevated to a hideous flaw in people of color; if Serena and Venus were white tennis stars who were maybe a little bit full of themselves, would we like them more?
I’m sorry, what? Oudin is of “average build”? No way. Normal height, yes. Average build, no. She’s very muscular. Her muscularity isn’t as threatening because she’s white and blonde. Black women’s muscularity is threatening and makes them “mannish.” If the average man dated Melanie Oudin it would be obvious to him she could kick his ass.
And the Williams sisters’ lack of prettiness? Please. They have regular, symmetrical features–the one culturally universal metric of prettiness.
Race is the main reason. It taints and pervades all the other reasons–the Williams’s muscularity and ungraciousness in defeat–because those would hardly be noticed if they weren’t black.
Funny how all of those things I put in bold are… qualities attributed (negatively) to black women, that set them apart from “normal” white women who are appropriately quiet, meek, submissive, consensus-oriented, curvaceous, soft, and attractive.
It taints and pervades all the other reasons–the Williams’s muscularity and ungraciousness in defeat–because those would hardly be noticed if they weren’t black.
I don’t see any reason to suppose that the qualities of the Williams sisters that you cite above “would hardly be noticed if they weren’t black.” I’m a rather avid reader of the sports pags and ungraciousness in particular is pretty generally noted by the press.
Funny how all of those things I put in bold are… qualities attributed (negatively) to black women
Actually, the prototypical example that comes to mind for me for these qualities in a female tennis player is Martina Navratilova, who’s about as white as it gets. When she played Chris Evert there the contrast was striking and there was no question that Martina would never be “America’s sweetheart”, well before her sexual preferences became commonly known.
quiet, meek, submissive, consensus-oriented, curvaceous, soft, and attractive.
These are qualities that fall under the “feminine” stereotype. They’re hardly exclusively or specifically identified with “white”.
As a bisexual woman, I like the suggestion of -phillic rather than -sexual; gynosexual and androsexual imply a single sexuality and omit bisexuals. OTOH gynophillic and androphillic only imply liking or enjoying, rather than strict sexuality, and thus seem more inclusive of bi and poly because they allow for liking, not strict adherence to a single attribute.
When she played Chris Evert there the contrast was striking and there was no question that Martina would never be “America’s sweetheart”, well before her sexual preferences became commonly known.
Yes, I mentioned that, and of course the reason was that Martina was not “conventionally attractive.” (She also, at the time, wasn’t American.) And that she liked to date women, which was certainly known on the tour, if not in mainstream America. Of course, none of that had a damn thing to do with the fact that Navratilova is probably the one player who one can definitely say is better than Evert; she’s won more tournaments than any other player in history. Billie Jean King called her the greatest singles, doubles, and mixed doubles player ever. And not for nothing, but her most recent major title came in mixed doubles, at the U.S. Open in 2006, when she was 49 years, 11 months old.
I mean, Jeebus, Navratilova is merely one of the greatest athletes — full stop — of the past century. (ESPN had her at #19 for the 20th Century, behind Bill Russell, ahead of Ty Cobb — the second-highest-ranked woman on the list, behind Babe Didrikson at #10.) But of course, she’ll never be “America’s Sweetheart,” because she’s gay, and not pretty enough. She’ll just have to settle for being unbelievably good.
Oh, and incidentally, all the scaaaaary traits associated with black women are generally associated with lesbians as well (so aggressive! So…manly!). Given that Navritalova’s sexuality was an open secret at the time, I highly doubt that wasn’t a factor in her coverage. Not to mention that she was a commie.
And that she liked to date women, which was certainly known on the tour, if not in mainstream America.
During the first part of her career it definitely wasn’t known to mainstream America, and that’s who spends money on endorsed products, etc. Her physical appearance, style of play and mannerisms affected her public image, but not her sexual preferences. By the time those became known the die was already cast.
But of course, she’ll never be “America’s Sweetheart,”
Yup. I doubt she cares. It certainly hasn’t held her back from anything she wanted to do or to achieve in her chosen field. It probably cost her some endorsement money, but she’s not hurting for cash.
I don’t see any reason to suppose that the qualities of the Williams sisters that you cite above “would hardly be noticed if they weren’t black.” I’m a rather avid reader of the sports pags and ungraciousness in particular is pretty generally noted by the press.
Actually, no, and definitely not by the fans. Elena Dementieva, Maria Sharapova and many of the white male players routinely do things that would get analyzed to death if the Williams sisters did them–and that most fans don’t even know about, while they somehow “know” that the Williams sisters aren’t very nice. And, incidentally, Venus and Serena are generally pretty gracious in defeat, especially Venus. The fact that they’re both known as ungracious says nothing good.
Her physical appearance, style of play and mannerisms affected her public image, but not her sexual preferences.
They caused people to assume things about her sexual preferences–which again ties into sexism and homophobia.
And no, Martina Navratilova probably doesn’t care about being America’s Sweetheart. In fact she’d probably hate it. Which is irrelevant to the point of this post. The point is that our conception of what it takes to be “America’s Sweetheart” relies on a racist, sexist and homophobic ideal of “femininity.”
Perhaps this is some new definition of “gracious” which I am unfamiliar with.
I have some trouble imagining Ms. Oudin screaming “I will cram this fucking ball down your fucking throat!”
So it is possible that there is a valid reason why Serena is not seen as a “sweetheart”.
But of course the whole idea of forcing the female players into sweethearts and non-sweethearts is demeaning, sexist and misogynist.
Robert, don’t be a dolt. I used the word “generally” for a reason–because her recent behavior was an exception.
Bondirotta, why do you find it hard to imagine Oudin shouting that? After she’s had a few more years of experience, feels more comfortable on the court, starts expecting to win (rather than just being excited about being there, as she is now), she will almost certainly occasionally get angry at linespeople and yell at them when things don’t go her way. Hopefully she won’t do this often, but if she has a long career she will most likely do it at least once. I agree, Serena isn’t a “sweetheart”–but neither is Oudin. She is an athlete, a competitive player, a person, and not a paragon of sweet femininity.