Overreact much? My thoughts on the Lindsey Vonn SI cover

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/ronjuddsolympicsinsider/2010963997_lindsey_vonn_si_poster_girl.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/cover/featured/9313/index.htm

The above two links show two different SI Winter Olympics themed covers. The 1st will take you to this years cover showing Lindsey Vonn, the 2nd is a 1992 cover featuring A.J. Kitt. Guess which one people are upset about? Normally I don't like to talk about these supposed controversies, I find them silly and a waste of time. But this one really bothered me, and since I now have a blog, I thought I'd say my piece.

So Let's talk about the Lindsey Vonn picture. It is a shot of her, in full ski equipment, minus a helmet, looking at the camera and smiling while in her skiing pose. That's it. Yes, she is clearly in a photo shoot and not actually skiing downhill. What seems to bother people is that somehow, Ms. Vonn is being objectified in this picture. Why, because she's wearing makeup and has had her hair done for a publicity photo? This is not an objectification of anybody, this is a photo shoot designed to give a face to the 2010 US Olympic team. She is on the cover so Americans who don't follow downhill skiing will know who to cheer for. People like a name AND a face. She also happens to be arguably the best in her sport and is expected to win gold, which makes her an ideal cover athlete.

Quick, who was the face of the US Olympic team in 2008? If you said Michael Phelps you'd be right. What does he have in common with Lindsey Vonn: both are the very best in the sport, both participate in sports that are rarely followed outside of Olympic competition, both sports focus mainly on the accomplishments of the individual, and oh yes, both athlete are considered to be attractive. Why is this a problem? If you devote your life to being in fabulous shape so you can compete at the highest level, it is reasonably expected that you are at least fairly attractive.

By the way, here's Michael Phelps SI cover, you'll notice the photographer didn't go out of the way to prove he was wearing anything at all, except his gold medals.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0808/oly.michael.phelps.covers/content.1.html

So we have a male athlete, possibly naked on the cover, in a pose that has nothing to do with his sport, and this is fine. (I guarantee you he is also wearing makeup, it's kind of how a photo shoot works) However, a female athlete in her uniform, posing as if she's competing, but smiling at the camera with a tasteful amount of makeup is somehow objectifying to all women? I rather doubt it.

Some of you maybe wondering about the 1992 photo I mentioned. You'll notice A.J. Kitt has his racing helmet on. You'll also notice that this is a less personal photo. What we have is not a face to cheer for, but a shape with a name, an interchangeable figure to the casual observer. I promise you, if they put A.J. Kitt in a little blush and eye shadow and had him smile at the camera, people outside of the downhill skiing community would still remember him. So it not about sexual objectification, or anything else, The cover is about introducing America to it's champions, the ones who will represent the best of what America has to off. In that context, they should be objectified, but as an example of athletic and physical perfection, of hard work and perseverance, not as a sexual object on the cover. To suggest that the cover intended to be anything other than tasteful, is to see a sexual deviance in the photo that exists only in the eye of the beholder.