Archive

feminist criticism of Lindsey Vonn cover shot on SI

  • myron pater boswell
    The comment beginning in the next paragraph is obviously from a feminist paramilitary organization, regarding a Sports Illustrated photo of Lindsey Vonn, in a posed tuck position on a ski slope. If there is no inclusion of women in SI, it is sexist; when women are included, it is sexist. Can't win with these feminazis:

    From womentalksports.com:

    Vonn is first a GREAT athlete, but she also represents norm of feminine attractiveness. The combination of athleticism and attractiveness make Vonn the likely poster girl of the US Olympic Team, and the media hasn't disappointed in constructed her as such.

    Not to be left out, Sports Illustrated is featuring Vonn on their Feb. 8, 2010 cover. For those of you who follow SI Covers, know that female athletes are RARELY featured on the cover.

    Over the last 60 years researchers have shown that about 4% of all SI covers have portrayed women.

    When females are featured on the cover of SI, they are more likely than not to be in sexualized poses and not in action-and the most recent Vonn cover is no exception.
  • darbypitcher22
  • gorocks99
    Need pic of said Lindsey Vonn to make an accurate judgement.
  • CinciX12




    Fits in pretty well with feminists hating attractive women.
  • Fab1b
    Vonn is hot!
  • UA5straightin2008
    i would
  • sleeper
    I don't see how me viewing her(and all women really) as a sexual object is a bad thing.
  • CinciX12
  • CinciX12
    Thats how guys ski too you feminist idiots.
  • Fab1b
    I hate feminists!!
  • myron pater boswell
    Thanks for posting the picture, CinciX12
  • Sage
    Yea, Lenin and I discussed this last night. It's definitely an innuendo-laden pose.

    Here's my thing with a feminist stance on this issue....

    Couldn't Lindsey Vonn have said, "I'm not demeaning myself with a pose like this?" Shouldn't their beef be with her?

    It's like getting mad at rappers for having sluts in their videos. Nobody put a gun up to their heads and demanded they danced that way or allowed champaign to be poured on them.

    Women can only objectify themselves in America. Not the other way around. This cover would never have existed had Ms. Vonn refused to pose that way.
  • SQ_Crazies
    myron pater boswell wrote: When females are featured on the cover of SI, they are more likely than not to be in sexualized poses and not in action-and the most recent Vonn cover is no exception.
    When men are on the cover it's rarely a picture of the "action". They're usually posing too. I don't see how this cover is "no exception" to what they described though. Because she's bent over? She's at least in a normal position for her competition. I'd say shes more "in action" than most of the covers and if they consider that a sexual pose then will they say womens skiing forces women into sexual poses and it isn't about the competition? LMAO
  • darbypitcher22
    she's gorgeous
  • wes_mantooth
    Some of these groups just make me shake my head. I mean, the feminists with shit like this and PETA with that "Obama swatting a fly" incident.....if you want to be taken serious then pick your spots. And I agree completely with Sage....this girl posed for the pic, no one made her.
  • bcubed
    Sage

    How is this a demeaning pose? She is a skier! That is the tuck position she is always in. Now if they had had her in that pose and took the picture from behind OK. But to say that this is a seductive/provacative pose is idiocy.
  • I Wear Pants
    How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
    Spoiler
    None, Feminists can't change anything.
    Aww, there aren't spoiler tags on here. :(
  • september63
    PETA wanted a mechanical groundhog this year to replace Punxatawney Phil. Apparently the ground hog contacted them about being treated improperly!
  • Sage
    bcubed wrote: Sage

    How is this a demeaning pose? She is a skier! That is the tuck position she is always in. Now if they had had her in that pose and took the picture from behind OK. But to say that this is a seductive/provacative pose is idiocy.
    Idiocy?

    Hardly.

    Look at it. How many times have you seen a chick skiing down the mountain with her head titled to the side and posing like that?

    Do you REALLY think that pose would've been chosen had they selected a male skier?
  • fan_from_texas
    bcubed wrote: Sage

    How is this a demeaning pose? She is a skier! That is the tuck position she is always in. Now if they had had her in that pose and took the picture from behind OK. But to say that this is a seductive/provacative pose is idiocy.
    I agree with this.
  • Upper90
    The argument is that there was a male skier doing a similar pose for the SI cover in 1992 or so.

    I'd have to find the pic, but I saw it earlier.
  • ohiotiger33
    Lol they would have a male do this pose. They did in 1992.
  • Sage



    Why not just go with something like this?


    This is an action shot. They should've went with an action shot. Notice how they didn't.


    This woman must not have been hot enough.


    Also, I went to SIVault.com, typed in "skier" and these are all the covers with they've had that have a skier on the front. I don't see this alleged 1992 cover.

    Take a look for yourself.....
    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/result/cover/index.htm?query=skier&searchType=cover&allClause=&exactClause=&orClause=&notClause=&startDt=&endDt=&sortBy=date&shootId=&searchByShootId=&currentPage=1&start=1&npp=20

    -------------------------------------------

    I mean, come on guys, lets not be naive here. She's a moderately attractive woman. There's a reason why they went with that pose (including a face shot) and not one of the other choices they've gone with in the past.
  • gorocks99
    This must be the '92 one they're referring to: