How do you feel about Candace Parker's C-cup being referenced in this lede?

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3967891

ESPN's Allison Glock profiles Ms. Parker, and discusses whether or not she's the female Jordan, how her pregnancy plays a role in her future plans, feminism, yadda, yadda. And the article is fine, although I think somewhat unfocused.

But the lead gave me a bit of pause.

Um...



I understand the whole point is that Parker and her agency want to market her to be the next Sharapova, but I'm not sure I've ever seen any print references to the size of Sharapova's breasts.

I don't know. On the other hand, breasts are not something to freak out over. And it managed to befuddle me so much, I read the rest of an article about the WNBA, which probably wouldn't have happened otherwise.

 

My wife read the story after getting the mail after I got home, and she's no sports fan.

And she read right past the C-cup reference. Maybe that's more common in Vogue or whatnot.

Obviously something no guy could ever write in this context.

 

I don't think it's any different than the "endless legs" comment. The point is she's hot, and she's talented, and for whatever reason is WAY underplaying that in her choice of a life partner.

 

I have no problem with the first C cup reference, but coming back to it in second reference is overcooked. Bigger issue to me is the lede as a whole---it's well over the top and loses it's objectivity about 70% of the way through it. I would have ended it at kind to animals.

 

I think it sucks. It seems to me we should be beyond the point where a female athlete can only be the 'next Jordan' if she's hot.......when a writer can casually mention the cup size of a male athlete in the lede, well, then let's talk about parity. But this shit has pissed me off for almost 30 years....

 

I don't disagree that it's really no different than writing about her legs, which people have done in reference to Sharapova, Kournikova and Graff for quite awhile. But there always seemed to be a line drawn between legs and breasts in terms of what was ok to write about when describing a woman's physical beauty. I'm not even going to argue that there shouldn't be a double standard in terms of male and female writers. It just sort of surprised me somewhat. I'd never actually given much thought to Candace Parker's breasts until just now, and now every time I see something in reference to her, that's all I'll think about.

Now, maybe that's the point. "Parker can play, and Parker is hot, so Parker can sell me shit, and Parker can be a global icon/celebrity and basketball is really just the irrelevant vehicle for all that." That is certainly reality, I guess I was just a little surprised that the story doesn't really care about the "I want to be taken seriously as an athlete" duality that attractive female athletes usually have to deal with. I guess I was just left with absolutely zero understanding of what makes Candace Paker a great basketball player, only what makes Candace Parker a hot mom with perky breasts, which she has (and here is a second reference in case you missed the first) but doesn't show off. That seems to do a little disservice to Parker, the league MVP, but as I said, basketball seems to be sort of irrelevant in the overall mission here.

 

How long is the list of mainstream publications that would publish that lede?

 

I didn't like it.. but consider the source (ESPN the Mag.) and the target audience (either young men under the age of 27 or lesbians?)
On a somewhat related note:
Maybe next, John Hawkins can blog about Henrik Stenson and has bulging man package that was on display when he hit out a water hazard in his skivies.

Edit:
In case anyone is curious...

 

Henrik Stenson is handsome. Breathtaking, really, with lumpy translucent skin, stubby legs and a decent-sized bulge in his trousers he is proud of but never flaunts. He's not quite the best at what he does, not a record-setter, nor a rule-breaker or redefiner. He's a Swedish man who plays like Anika Sorestam, if Anika had hair around her belly button, a farmer tan and a decent-sized bulge in her trousers. He's charming, too. Delicate, even. Kind to animals and children, he is the sort of man who worries about others more than about himself, a saint in spikes.

 

It's just really dumb. She's proud of her C cups? And she demonstrates this pride how? Marching in the Boobs Pride Parade? Complying when fans want to be photographed with Candy's gumdrops? Tell us, Allison.

God. I covered the first women's pro hoops league. Back then it was, hint, hint, she's not a lesbian. The only married player on the team. ... Her boyfriend watches from the stands. ... The only mom in the league. The players wanted to be dealt with as players, not as specimens in a sociological zoo.

You could let readers know that a player has some aesthetic appeal beyond fans without specifying the size of her bazongas. You wouldn't write about a male player that the ladies are fascinated by the package in his shorts.

 

I was trying to find the laughing smiley face to paste here. That was outstanding stuff DD. Truly hilarious!!!

 

Sat on an airplane with this issue, just reading that lead over and over.

My first reaction was to wonder which frat boy wrote the story.....second reaction was disbelief that it was written by a woman. Endless legs was enough. Did we need the cup size so the 18-34ers wouldn't lose interest in the story?

This is why I don't get this magazine at all, and every issue reinforces my confusion. They put this beautiful woman on the cover, elegant and pregnant and cool.....but they can't resist the gratuitous boob reference. If Parker 'never flaunts'' her breasts, why did Glock have to flaunt them for her?