Do female athletes have to look good?

Gina Carano, Michelle Wie, Maria Sharapova, Cassie Campbell, Gabrielle Reece, Misty May, Danica Patrick. All these girls dominate their respective sports, and all have that unique marketable quality of being goodlooking. Do women have to be goodlooking to be accepted as the best in their field, or at least as worthy contenders ?




With these overwhelming examples, it seems that across the board goodlooking girls are the poster children we first think of when we talk about women's sports. However, I argue that this is the case with most sports, even men's. Take a look.

Sidney Crosby ("Oh, he's cute!"), Andy Roddick (even Federer and Nadal are not unfortunate-looking), David Beckham, Floyd Mayweather Jr., A.Rod, Derek Jeter, Tiger Woods, I could go on. Even guys who are not arguably the best in show are given extra attention, possibly because they are attractive. I'm thinking Sean Avery, Aaron Baddeley (who?), or even Josh Beckett (yeah, we know him, but how many girls like the Red Sox simply becuase of this guy) or David Wright for the Mets.

There goes that feminist argument. Most top athletes are goodlooking, male or female, or so it would seem. But why? Perhaps we hold these athletes up to our highest standards, they are, after all, our role models. Greek athletes in ancient times were sculpted and beautiful and stoic, and not much has changed in our ideals for our top players. They are our idols, we look up to them and relate to them. We don't want to be like someone who's ugly - they better have unparalelled talent, enviable humility and graciousness and one hell of a smile if we are willing to call them our own.

Do women have to look good to dominate their sports? Damn right. But so do men.


-- the golden girl