e-flux Conversations has been closed to new contributions and will remain online as an archive. Check out our new platform for short-form writing, e-flux Notes.

e-flux conversations

'To watch elite female athletes is to watch women not give a shit when they look ugly'

If you live in an area where soccer supersedes sport into pastime (i.e. almost everywhere but the United States), you probably noticed the brouhaha surrounding last year’s (male) World Cup, which is conspicuously absent amid this summer’s Women’s World Cup. Bars erupted with public viewings, Twitter seemingly overflowed, art nerds outed themselves as diehard football fans. Autumn Whitefield-Madrano has written about the comparatively unpopular world of women’s soccer, and the inspiration in watching women strive for athletic greatness while not giving a shit about what they look like. (My only qualm–do these things have to be mutually exclusive? And do we really have to bring athletics back to a woman’s appearance again, as always?) Read an excerpt below, or the full piece on The New Inquiry.

I’ve been watching a lot of the Women’s World Cup, with a fervor that surprises even me. I’m an unlikely soccer fan to begin with; sports, personally speaking, have traditionally been something to be avoided and/or feared. But after I shocked myself last summer by watching literally every single World Cup match—including dual-screening it for games that overlapped—I surrendered in full to the beautiful game.

Women’s soccer, though? I didn’t follow it. I supported it politically, of course, but it was rare to find a women’s game on TV. I muddled through a couple of U.S. Women’s National Team matches, but I didn’t know the players, which detracted from its appeal. Knowing that the Fox networks were going to broadcast all the games of the Women’s World Cup, I decided to give it a go, since the tournament would give me plenty of opportunities to become familiar with the players. I’d hoped to be as entertained as I was with the men’s version last year, and I have been. What I didn’t expect to be was moved.

The playing is excellent, of course; it’s the best female soccer players in the world, after all. But what moves me is not a beautiful pass, or a bad refereeing call, or even the players’ backstories. What moves me is the players’ faces, and watching women want. It’s not hard to find images of women in the public act of doing beyond what’s been allotted by tired stereotypes. We see women legislating, creating, speaking, protesting—images that weren’t available just a couple of generations ago. But we still don’t often see women in the act of wanting. And we need to see this, because when you’re in the act of wanting something badly enough, there isn’t room for self-consciousness. How you look, your stance, your hair, your makeup, whether you appear pretty, your sex appeal: all of these things that coalesce in my brain, and maybe yours, to form a hum so low and so constant that I take it as a state of being—and when you want, they disappear. When you want, the want goes to the fore. The you can take a backseat.

What do you look like when you want? In my case, I can’t really say. There are plenty of things in this world that I want, but most of my deepest desires make wanting a state, not an act: I want to do meaningful work, I want to be happy, I want to give and receive love. The closest I know to the act of wanting in the ways female athletes want is perhaps the state of flow. In those rare moments of flow, self-consciousness falls away. It’s a gift when it happens. But I’ve never had occasion to test how far the flow state really goes as far as lifting my own awareness of how I appear. Even when my entire being is focused on a desire, I’m probably not at risk of truly breaking any sort of code of feminine regulation. I don’t really know what I look like when I’m writing but I imagine the weirdest thing my face does is frown a lot. I probably look weirder in the context of sexual desire, but the contortions particular to the “O” face get a pass of sorts.

When I watch the athletes of this World Cup, I see an entirely different way that desire becomes focused. Specifically, I see desire become externalized. Elite athletes have spent their entire lives articulating themselves through moving their bodies. To watch them want something is an exercise in watching desire become a visual, physical force.

http://thenewinquiry.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/the-beheld-christine-sinclair-383x330.png

FIFA and CSA are certainly in cahoots here but with a more cynical stance. Their janus-faced inclusivity welcomes female players to mobilize their desires with the caveat that they play on artificial turf. At 120 degrees, the artificial ground was 45 degrees hotter than the natural grass on the first day of the tournament, and is notorious for searing players legs. This is something the Men’s World Cup, with or without vanity, but with all the buttressing of safety guidelines for the men, has never been asked to do. Though it is refreshing to see this kind of drive iterated across a diversity of genders it’s unclear why Whitefield-Mudrano writes that they look ugly, that seems their own subjective suggestion. The desire expressed seems anything but. Actually the visibility of volition and the players empowered position to pursue it in the public eye is exceptionally sexy.

“The playing surface was watered using two fire hoses instead of the standard sprinkler system.”

1 Like

I found the turf issue really baffling, not out of a lack of familiarity with the game, but out of disbelief. Having played soccer year-round for about ten years through my teens (on turf in the winter and grass in the summer), I know the difference between turf and grass is obviously a huge one. The ball moves faster and bounces more on turf, and players are less likely to dive or slide tackle. There was a hierarchy of grass at my school–the men’s team got to practice on the manicured field also reserved for the (American) football team. This feels very funny to reminisce about, but I never thought that these turf politics would come into play at the World cup. What does FIFA even gain from screwing with the turf? It seems like an impossibly bad decision all around. But I should dial back my disbelief, as this all boils back down to the point that misogyny happens everywhere, even (and especially) in the highest echelons of our fields.

But yes, also, I didn’t find the women “unattractive” in these photos, but I get the general premise. I think the takeaway is that these women are focusing on something other than their looks, which is, you know, supposed to be novel.

1 Like

Yes, the take away’s pretty front and center but it’s the reinscription and primacy of aesthetic value that is the doublespeak that rankles and I would say, the actual message. Isn’t the disavowal of whether or not one is archetypically ugly just an injunction to remember that looks always come first for women rather than what we do when we look however it is that we look whilst doing it?

Gary Lineker even pooped himself in the middle of the 1990 World Cup and no one noticed until he pointed it out 20 years later. Even then the story was about what he was doing, “relaxing” himself, no value judgements on how he looked doing it!

2 Likes

This might be my favorite e-flux conversations comment to date!

2 Likes