We're Now Allowed to Think Female B-Ballers Are Pretty

In the latest group of women to be singled out and ballyhooed because of perceived non-traditional looks, college basketball star Brittney Griner has now been deemed pretty, according to The New York Times. Griner and her ilk, mainly basketball or tennis stars possessed with "muscular athleticism," are tall with bodies built for sport. The qualities that make them good, like Griner's "wingspan of an albatross" (a big flying bird with the longest wings of any living species, in case you were wondering), are not traditionally seen as attractive in women.

But, now, according to the Times, the animal-like features (the writer, Guy Trebay, compared Griner's arms to a huge bird and her legs to a horse) and no-muss beauty routines of Griner, swimmer Keri Walsh, and Mia Hamm are positive. All because "feminine beauty ideals have shifted with amazing velocity over the last several decades, in no realm more starkly than sports." And therein lies the problem.

A shifting of beauty ideals is never a cause for celebration: it's still an ideal, meaning that most people won't reach it. Athletic bodies are certainly different from stick-thin models or bootylicious video vixens, but that doesn't mean that they are any more healthy or that people should aspire to look that way. Griner's muscular 6-foot-8 frame is no more attainable to me than Mary-Kate Olsen's teeny petite one. What I, and every other woman and girl on the planet, should work towards is making our own bodies as healthy as possible. That message is woefully scant in trend pieces like this one.

The piece also trots out the issue of androgyny — which has been present in professional women's sports for as long as I can remember — as some game-changing idea. A Stanford University professor and women's basketball fan is quoted, "[Griner] is part of a slowly unfolding, civilized response in this country to the slightly androgynous female." This may be something that I don't understand because I grew up in a different time than the professor, but androgyny is almost expected of female athletes, which is why dress-wearing-makeup-loving sportswomen like Serena Williams and Lisa Leslie are seen as exceptions.

The professor goes on to say that Griner "calls our attention to the unnecessary rigidity of sex roles and makes a number of feminist points along the way.” Now, I'm all for diversity and acceptance between women, but not wearing make-up and playing basketball are not feminist rebellions; Griner is just being who she is. The Times and the professor are projecting their own limited notions of femininity onto this teen by claiming that she's some sort of freak and that obviously no one will find her attractive — unless a story and a bunch of quotes tells us so. Again, that whole Other thing.

Here's the kicker: Griner is traditionally pretty. Her skin is smooth, her cheekbones are high, and her lips are full. I don't think anyone would look at her face and say that she's ugly. So why all the fuss to prove that, especially in light of her incredible achievements in basketball? Trebay even went as far as to sit down with a scout from Ford Models who said, “I always love one-offs and amazing creatures ... Maybe I should represent her? ... I can imagine a market for that.”

It's not that women athletes can't be pretty or don't want to be pretty, but why does it matter? Granted, I don't read much sports media, but I can't imagine that Lebron James' rookie year coverage included a quote from a modeling scout.

Note: That is not a photo of Griner.

Photo credit: Bard College Raptors