News Flash: Have Female Athletes Redefined Beautiful?

When women first really started to get involved in sports they were often labeled as manly and unfeminine. Rarely were women athletes thought of us beautiful; in fact, probably the farthest thing from it. But as the years passed and sports became more and more popular with girls and women, the image of the female athlete changed. When we look at the Williams sisters, Amanda Beard, Dara Torres, and Mia Hamm the first thing we see is not their muscles, but rather strong, beautiful female athletes. However, all of these female athletes that I named are heterosexual women who many think are physically attractive. When one looks at Brittney Griner, a 6-foot-8 basketball player for Baylor University, people either see a woman who they think is a lesbian, a man, or a woman who is redefining what it means to be beautiful and has the potential to be a model.

Has beauty really been redefined at all? Or are people just saying that beauty has been redefined because Griner deviates from the traditional definition of beautiful? Appearance really doesn’t matter; we should not be so concerned with Griner’s physical appearance but more with her skills on the court. It seems that the most important thing to our society is the way we physically look. Joan Brumberg, author of “Body Projects” writes, “Today, many young girls worry about their contours of their bodies—especially shape, size, and muscle tone—because they believe that the body is the ultimate expression of self.” It doesn’t seem like Griner cares all that much about her appearance, but more about how she performs on the court. And if she is expressing herself through the way she looks then she is telling us all that she is a strong, powerful woman who is not afraid to play rough and show people what a woman is capable of. In my opinion, Griner is redefining what it means to be a female athlete rather than redefining what it means to be beautiful.

Griner is an incredibly talented basketball player with large muscles and manly features. She has a strong torso, quick and muscular legs, and short hair. There was once a time when these features were solely looked down upon; is that no longer the case today? Some people say yes and others say no. Guy Trebay, a writer for the New York Times, writes, “Feminine beauty ideals have shifted with amazing velocity over the last several decades, in no realm more starkly than sports. Muscular athleticism of a sort that once raised eyebrows is now commonplace. Partly this can be credited to the presence on the sports scene of Amazonian wonders like the Williams sisters, statuesque goddesses like Maria Sharapova, Misty May Treanor and Kerri Walsh, sinewy running machines like Paula Radcliffe or thick-thighed soccer dynamos like Mia Hamm.”

So if beauty truly has been redefined, why is there so much talk about Brittney Griner and her appearance? Is she a little bit too manly to be as beautiful as the other athletes that were mentioned? If we’ve really totally redefined beauty, shouldn’t the discussion of Griner’s manliness be mute? Sadie Stein responds to the New York Times article in her piece on the Jezebel website titled “Androgynous Athletes Not Exactly 'Revolutionizing' Beauty Standards,” saying, “So in purporting that standards of beauty have changed, the author objectifies a teenage athlete, subjects her to conventional standards, and then makes it clear that, in fact, no one has redefined their notions of beauty at all — although maybe they could make use of her, since they like novelty. Reductive? Check. Offensive? Check, check.”

Brittney’s shoe size is more than twice the size of the average woman’s, she is taller than 99.35 percent of all Americans, she has the “wingspan of an albatross,” and she can dunk (Trebay). it now acceptable to play like a man when you are a woman? Griner is showing everyone what it means to be a female athlete, one who is redefining how females play sports. Trebay writes, “As these women and their sisters took home trophies and stockpiled medals, they also helped reset the parameters for how feminine beauty is defined. It has been a century since women athletes were first released from chaste and restricting sports 'costumes' and began flaunting their athleticism and muscularity. A lot happened in that time, not least the political awakening that provoked shifts in both consciousness and standards of what it meant to be a woman and play like a man.”

But why do we need to discuss Griner’s physical appearance when she has so many other talents? Our society is still so focused on what people look like rather than what their talents are. And just because Brittney is not the stereotypical pretty girl from next door does not mean that her looks always need to be discussed and that she needs to be labeled as a man or a lesbian. It doesn’t really seem like Griner is redefining beauty standards at all. It just seems like the media want to convince people that she is. Stein writes, “According to this piece, we define 'beauty' as marketability now? And for that matter: What 'changing standards' are we talking about? Tall and thin have been the standard of at least high-fashion beauty (which is how the author seems to define it) for the past few decades. And by any standard, Griner is a conventionally pretty woman—is this radical new paradigm shift an acceptance of...tall women?"

It seems to me that we are not moving forward in society at all, that we are not even close to redefining what it means to be beautiful. Yes, some female athletes are no longer looked down upon, but Brittney is a clear example of a female athlete who is. Society is instilling this idea that there is only one correct definition of beautiful. Brumberg writes, “Cultural pressures have accumulated, making American girls today, at the close of the twentieth century, more anxious than ever about the size and shape of their bodies, as well as particular body parts.” People aren’t contemplating her Griner’s skill level on the court but whether or not she is a male or female. So she’s a strong, sturdy female who can dunk. Were only discussing her because she’s not what a “normal” female looks like. She doesn’t have a slender figure, small feet, thin arms and legs, or a bobbing ponytail. She’s a muscular, toned woman who kicks butt on the basketball court. Only when we don’t need to be constantly discussing the physical appearance of a female athlete will we have started to redefine beauty.

The fact that Griner’s appearance is even being discussed clearly demonstrates how our society and the definition of beautiful have not really changed at all. Society is still so caught up in looks that we’re overlooking Brittney Griner’s basketball aptitude and focusing on her physical appearance. I believe that people are simply saying that Griner is redefining beauty because it makes them feel better when the truth is that beauty should not have to be defined, and it should not only apply to a specific type of person, but rather all people .