When women look strong: Marion Bartoli and the sexism at Wimbledon

Wimbledon is about tennis. It's about grace, poise, endurance, and victory. This year's female champion Marion Bartoli embodies Wimbledon, but in a body a BBC commentator found unappealing. Wimbledon is not about misogyny. 

Bob Martin/AP
Marion Bartoli poses with her Wimbledon trophy.

"Do you think Bartoli's dad told her when she was little, 'you're never going to be a looker, you'll never be a Sharapova, so you have to be scrappy and fight?'"

These words were uttered by the BBC's John Inverdale on Radio Five Live when Marion Bartoli won Wimbledon 2013. Bartoli had just proven herself one of the top tennis players in the world--a woman of strength, skill, and athleticism. But instead of comparing Bartoli's win with other female tennis players', Inverdale took stock of whether she was as beautiful as other tennis players.

Reducing women to their physical appearances, no matter their accomplishments, is misogyny. It undercuts women's achievements and suggests that if you are female, nothing is more important than your sex appeal.

Unfortunately, this misogyny is everywhere: As the media spotlight focused on Bartoli, hoards of viewers took to social media to complain about Bartoli's appearance. The twitter stream about Bartoli was truly ugly and filled with obscenities.

The tamest of the twitter comments said that she "didn't deserve to win because she is ugly," that she is a "pig," and that she "looks like she's a cross between a man and an ape." Why did so many comments fixate on suggesting Bartoli was an animal and/or a man? Well, as Judith Butler argues, femininity is not naturally occurring; it is a performance. It requires artifice and careful planning: pretty makeup, coiffed hair, stylish clothing, and a body that is controlled--slim and slight but curvy. In today's world, people expect that any self-respecting woman will make being feminine a priority at all times. (Think about how many women won't leave the house without makeup on, lest people judge them negatively.)

Bartoli, on the tennis court without makeup, was not performing femininity. She was being athletic: running, sweating, driving her body to function at its peak. She looked strong because she is strong--and because our culture associates strength with masculinity, it's really hard to appear strong and feminine at the same time.

Apparently, this was an affront to countless people, because a woman in the spotlight who does not perform femininity is shocking. It's a sad commentary on our culture that when a woman is confident in her natural appearance, she is regarded as unnatural, unfeminine, masculine. 

This is why the spectacle of Bartoli's body in its natural state, devoid of artifice, was judged and roundly condemned. We've become so used to female public figures being heavily styled, and always dramatically retouched when appearing in print media, that we have deluded ourselves. We believe that they--not the rest of the women in our world--are the normal ones. Unlike fictional strong women (think Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Charlie's Angels), whose physiques are so slight they might blow away in a strong gale, Bartoli's physical strength is evident. She, herself, is a force of nature.  

We need more women like Bartoli in the public eye. Bartoli is a perfectly normal looking woman, but she is exceptional. Her body is a tool. It is strong. It is powerful. It is not decorative. She uses it to do tennis, and there is no reason for her to be apologetic about that. She proves that women's bodies have tremendous value even when they are not primarily decorative. Women can brim with strength and athleticism, and look unapologetically human, and win events on the global stage.  

I'd like to see posters of Marion Bartoli on every little girl's wall. She's exactly the kind of role model that we need.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.