By Caitlin Roper
Last week, The Australian newspaper reported that Channel Seven’s 7mate would be broadcasting the Lingerie Football. To all those who are unfamiliar with this spectacle, yes, it is exactly what it sounds like. While many accomplished women’s sporting leagues in Australia are both competitive and successful, media coverage is reserved for those women’s leagues where the uniforms consist of lingerie.
I created a change.org petition to Channel 7’s Board of Directors, asking them not to broadcast the Lingerie Football League that Australia Womensport and Recreation Association had described as “sexist and demeaning to all women.”
Some supporters of the Lingerie Football League, including players and men who didn’t like their access to sweaty, lingerie clad women challenged, referred to my petition on various pages on Facebook. They googled me looking for something they could use against me. I was labeled a “jealous bitch”, obviously fat and ugly, and most likely bitter that my husband was fan of Lingerie Football. I was too ugly to land a partner. I should be sent to “Guantanimo (sic) Bay” (an overreaction I thought, but still) and I probably think “walking to the kitchen for another jam donut counts as exercise” (that last one is true.)
A small sample below:
I considered responding with some facts- that I am happily married, that I work out several times a week and that I am not ugly. Then I recalled this was a classic silencing tactic I had experienced many times before– tearing women down by criticizing their physical appearance.
Women in our hyper-sexualised culture are valued for their physical attractiveness and their ability to please men sexually. Conforming to limited, stereotypical, pornified ideals of beauty and sexuality, we learn, is where our power lies. As Gail Dines writes in Pornland:
“In a porn culture, our power lies, we are told, not in our ability to shape the institutions that determine our life chances, but in having a hot body that men desire and women envy.”
In a porn culture, women can be either “f*ckable” or “invisible”. With this in mind, being regarded as an undesirable woman with nothing to offer could be potentially upsetting.
This isn’t the first time I’ve been subjected to abuse for speaking out against sexism and misogyny.
It is telling that my opponents’ first course of action was to call me fat and ugly, and that these were perceived as the most stinging insults they could unleash. What if I was fat or ugly? What if I am? If my face and body are not sufficiently pleasing to the male gaze should I be rendered voiceless?
I have more to offer than my body and I have more to offer than being pretty, as do all women and girls. Our obsession with being hot is merely a distraction.
Women are more and should be viewed as more. Unfortunately, from my experiences, the day women are recognized for their contributions and not their bodies still seems a long way off.
An open letter “To those who oppose the LFL in Australia” was posted on our [Collective Shout] Facebook page yesterday.
Elise – an athlete who has recently joined an LFL team – asked us to read and consider her views on the LFL.
You can read Elise’s open letter here. (Opens PDF)
Below is an open response to the open letter.
Dear Elise,
Thanks so much for writing to share your views on the Lingerie Football League.
Firstly, we do understand that the owner of the League has changed the name and brand to “Legends Football League” and has very slightly modified the bikini/lingerie style uniform he requires players to wear, by removing some lace and a garter and modifying shoulder pads.
The changes are so minor we don’t understand how anyone could take this seriously. The rebrand is nothing more than a cynical attempt at making the League more appealing to potential sponsors who may be put off by supporting a “Lingerie Football League.” (Readers can view the big announcement here.)
Despite a “rebrand”, the essence of the “sport” remains the same – providing titillation for men at the expense of women’s health and safety. Hence, we’re not buying into this “rebrand” and will continue referring to it as the Lingerie Football League.
Lingerie Football – whatever one chooses to call it – is not a sport. It is not recognized by the Australian Sports Commission. They do not support it.
The LFL has drained the bank accounts of former players in the US by not providing adequate compensation for serious injuries. Players understood that their injuries would be covered when they paid the insurance premiums offered by the LFL, but were instead left thousands of dollars in debt. Players who spoke out publicly about these experiences were threatened with legal action. As you’re probably aware, the US does not have the same healthcare system enjoyed by Australians, so adequate health insurance should be the highest priority for the LFL, particularly when safety equipment is the lowest priority.
Sport can indeed be an expensive pursuit and athletes are not always compensated for participation unless they are sponsored.
Now that the Lingerie Football League has a “contract” with Channel 7 and 7 Mate, will players be paid?
It doesn’t look likely. LFL owner Mitch Mortaza stated just this month to US program Inside Edition (watch below) that the league could not afford to pay players. It has been suggested by a US sports commentator that the Leagues foray into Canada and Australia is motivated in part by our health care system. Mortaza will pocket the profits from these events and Australian Medicare will foot the bill for injuries if private health insurance offered to Australian LFL players turns out to be inadequate.
The athletic skill of the women involved in the Lingerie Football League is not in question. There is no “attack” on the players of the LFL. If there is an “attack” it is directed firmly at the owner of the LFL and any corporation complicit in his exploitation of women for profit.
Some players have commented that they are not “skinny” and therefore promote positive body image. The question is asked “would you rather your daughter look like a Victoria’s Secret model or an LFL player?”
Are those really the only options? And why is physical appearance so important?
We would rather our girls not be pressured to look a certain way at all and instead be recognised for their skill and expertise in whatever activities they choose to participate in.The LFL reinforces that physical appearance and conforming to a narrow standard of beauty is what is most important, over and above athletic skill.
If Lingerie Football is about skill, then unfortunately fans didn’t get the memo. The sexist, degrading comments on social media and elsewhere about LFL player’ss bodies and what sort of sexual acts fans would like to perform are absolutely disgusting. (example) The “sport” is marketed in such a way as to invite and allow this behaviour and creates an environment that is hostile and discriminatory to women and girls. This is institutional sexual harassment. No sporting body should promote or allow this behaviour but sexual harassment is built into the business model of the LFL.
Yes, the League exists because it is “marketed well.” There is a huge market demand for pornography, prostitution, stripping and other forms of sexual exploitation. Men have not suddenly decided to embrace women’s sport. Channel 7 and 7Mate has not decided to embrace women’s sport and therefore, the LFL will not encourage other stations to embrace women’s sport. The LFL is not some new cutting edge concept, this is not the “fastest growing sport.” This is not sport at all, this is the same old sexual objectification of women, repackaged and “rebranded.”
To say if “we don’t like it don’t watch simple!” – Yes, that is a very simple statement, but it is a completely ineffective response to sexual objectification in our culture.
I don’t like it, I don’t watch it, but I have to live in a community with people who do. I have to live in a community with people whose sexist attitudes towards women are reinforced by sexploitation events. I have to live in a community with people whose ideas that women are objects of sexual recreation are affirmed by these events.
A culture in which women and girls are seen as sexual objects is one in which relationships between men and women suffer and sexual harassment and violence against women thrives. I and other women and girls are harmed by this toxic culture, even if I have never personally played football in my underwear, participated in a beauty pageant or stripped off my clothes in a nightclub.
Sexual objectification of women and girls harms all women, not just those who say they choose to participate. “Don’t like it, don’t watch it” makes as much sense as saying “don’t like pollution, don’t breathe.”
Elise, we thank you for taking the time to share your views and to provide information about the recent developments in the LFL. These minor changes to the League- if they can be called changes at all – do not change our views on the exploitative nature of the League.
Clearly we disagree on this and will continue challenging the Lingerie Football League’s introduction to Australia. However, we do wish you and your fellow athletes all the very best.
Melinda Liszewski and Collective Shout
Click here to watch longer interviews with 3 former Lingerie Fooball League players discussing abuse and exploitation in the Lingerie Football League.
See also: ‘Still sexist: Why we’re not falling for Lingerie Football’s rebrand’, Jas Swilks, MTR blog, February 19, 2013
‘When women are sport: lingerie football comes to Australia’, MTR, Sunday Herald Sun, May 20, 2012
‘A sad day for all women in sport’, Deborah Malcolm, MTR blog, June 10, 2012
‘Abused, called pussy and told to “pancake the shit out of her”: my experience of Lingerie Football League try outs in Sydney last week’, Talitha Stone, MTR blog, June 9, 2012
19 Responses
Support you all the way Caitlin!!
Men who believe it is their innate right to view women and girls as disposable sexualised commodities always respond with vile misogynistic insults. This demonstrates the males are incapable of engaging in rational debate or dialogue but instead know uttering insults will result in the woman or women being silenced. This is how male domination and male power over women operates. Women must not respond by reminding the women-hating male she is not ‘fat etc.’ but instead focus on the real issue which is systemic and widespread male hatred and male contempt for women and girls. Dehumanising women and girls is a common male ploy because it enables men to continue to believe their myth that only males are human whereas females are what??
Men know when they are supposedly being ‘dehumanised’ because men believe they alone have right to be accorded dignity and respect which is why there is no male pseudo football team dressed just in g-strings!
Men also utter that common claim ‘if the woman or girl doesn’t want to view images of sexualised women then the woman/girl shouldn’t watch.’ Men of course conveniently ignore the fact our society is awash with male created images of dehumanised sexualised women and girls and the issue is not about an individual woman or girl ‘not watching/seeing such images’ but is about systemic male hatred/male contempt for women posing as ‘harmless male fun!’
Perhaps those men who claim women should just not watch such programmes will utter the same excuse/justification if and when a non-white female or male protests about racism. After all the non-white female or male need only look away or not watch racist programmes or read racist articles in order not to be offended!
Knowing this type of backlash is coming can take the sting out of it when it inevitably arrives. It was far easier for me to sweep the backlash out of the way and reorient toward doing EVEN MORE and being ever more vocal since I expected it. This is not excusing this reprehensible behavior, but it does put it into a context that is more manageable.
I personally find it droll and transparent with little impact on my desire to work for change. Also, there are so many women doing this work, specifically online, that the backlash seems to do the opposite of what it is ostensibly meant to. We talk to each other and find similarities that can bring a cohesion to our work. This is the power of being able to share our stories with each other. Thank you.
” “would you rather your daughter look like a Victoria’s Secret model or an LFL player?” I’m sorry, but that line almost made me spit my coffee.
I completely respect the views of the author however I find it interesting the use of terminology such as “by men”, “for men”, “of men”. There seems to be no allowance made for the possibility that there might actually be some men who actually share your viewpoint. Could you perhaps consider using “done men”, “a proportion of the male population”? Why alienate those of us who support your cause?
Many thanks
Hi Karl,
Thanks for your comment. I know there are many good men who are our allies fighting alongside us, as they should be. I understand how you might feel alienated by what appears to be a generalisation of the entire male population. However, I hope your frustration is centred on those men who do exploit and objectify women, rather than those of us who seek to speak honestly about our experiences and label male violence for what it is. Thanks for your support.
Caitlin
Our family love American football, with a passion. My husband and teenage sons all play and have represented WA and Australia at various stages. We would support a women’s league if there were one here in Australia. I know plenty of women who would like try out too. The game is awesome.
However LFL is not sport, it is pornography plain and simple. Lucrative yes, popular sadly, good for society as a whole no, should be widely accepted and broadcast ABSOLUTELY NOT.
My family will not watch it on TV and my boys will be changing teams as the LFL has commenced training on their home ground.
We will also continue to support those who bravely speak out against it and other forms of female objectification and abuse as we would rather our daughters ACT like Caitlin Roper than look like LFL players.
Hi there Karl,
I wrote the open letter which made references to “men.” When I use the term “men” in this letter, I’m referring to men as a group. I didn’t say “some men” but I didn’t say “all men” either.
To use a similar example, if an article was written about women’s magazines and how women and girls’ body image is negatively affected by them, I wouldn’t assume this means “all women and girls.” The issue affects women and girls as a group.
I hope that makes sense Karl and thanks so much for your comment.
Any chance you guys could remove pornographic images? Especially on articles decrying the objectification of women.
Hi,
I appreciate the response and explanation.
Yes, I do feel a sense of frustration at the attitudes (and also, sadly, the expectations) of some men. And thank you for acknowledging my concerns about alienating those who truly support the fight against the exploitation of women.
I completely understand your explanation, Melinda. I do think, though, that by omitting the use of qualifying language i.e. ‘some’ men (not ‘done’ as I posted earlier – was using my phone then and couldn’t see what I was swyping) when describing how ‘men’ stereotype and sexify women – despite your intention of how the language should be interpreted i.e. not to mean ‘all’ men – is ultimately doing a disservice to the progress of the cause; as the lack of a qualifier leads the reader to do as I did, and interpret your text to be making generalisations about all men. If we’re trying to avoid stereotypes and generalisations, should we not be doing so for both sexes?
Being proactive by using language that acknowledges ‘not all men are bastards’ will help boost support from those who, like me, are often afraid to lend their voice to such issues for fear of using the wrong language and being berated on forums such as this. I must say that the responses I’ve received on this forum have been constructive, informative and non-judgemental, and i thank you for allowing me to express my opinion.
Kind regards
Jason, if you have a problem with the image, I suggest you should join us in our campaign. This is what will be broadcast on national TV next month, promoted as family entertainment.
Karl, you are hijacking a very important conversation about the suffering of women, and making it about your own hurt feelings in regards to statements that you have no fundamental right to be offended by.
I would encourage you, as a supporter, to be just that – supportive. Because it is the right thing to do, not because women will acknowledge or commend you for it.
Male socialisation will tell you that it is your right to feel welcomed and adored by women simply because you are not a raging misogynist.
Please understand that this is a patriarchal sense of entitlement, and in order to be a good ally to our cause you will address and acknowledge this, and focus your frustration at the men who have created the power structure that benefits and entitles you above women, rather than the women who make statements about this group without adding an extra qualifier in order to make you feel better about the whole situation.
The emphasis of this league is definitely on the bodies of women, not their sport abilities (even though they have them, as Elise’s letter shows). It’s target audience are boys and men who are no more interested in the abilities of the players than looking at women’s bodies and hoping for some ‘cat fight’. The message is, as always, that women are to be looked at. The reduction of women to their physical appearance is so ubiquitous, the first thing people who disagreed with you was to attack your physical appearance. And by that, they meant attacking your whole worth (in their minds, that’s what they were doing). Women in every sphere of activities are subject to that. Even women politicians instead of being opposed on their ideas are often the victim of attacks on their appearance.
This League and (most) all of the media (highly dominated by men, we have to say it) encourage this way of thinking. It is not about Elise’s choice; why are so many people so eager to end the discussion at that? Well, it could be if the choice was not highly marketed and broadcasted. The problem is what our society proposes to women and girls. It is this idea that women in themselves, with their talents and abilities alone, are not enough to deserve attention. They have to look good and show it, first and foremost. It is one more piece of this cultural landscape where women’s worth lies in their body and how it appeals to the male gaze. It is to put a lot of power in the hands of men who do not respect women and see them as objects to please them if we are to value ourselves through their eyes. This is far away from women’s liberation!
I am discouraged sometimes because it seems that things are getting worse. Thank you for your work. I don’t know what we can do more than protest, not encouraging/buying what promotes these values and turning our backs on men who support them.
maybe I should start a petition to stop Aussie Rules Football.
The men are all so good-looking and athletic….oh I just can’t take it anymore!!!! it must stop!!!
What is wrong with you blokes?
3 comments from men. 2 of them are having a go at the way the article is put together. And the last one is mocking the women.
Did any of you guys read the damn thing?
Cate was stalked online and told in public forums that she was a jealous bitch. here was a great opportunity for u guys to say “hey cate, i’m so sorry that these idiots did that, it is completely unacceptable.” and instead you think extra effort should go to protecting ur feelings? And u guys reckon u support the cause?
and FFS Jason, ur big focus is for cate to take down the “pornographic” image. U mean the screen grab of an event about to be broadcast on national television? That’s the whole point of her article Jason.
ben hasn’t even said anything worth responding to.
If ur concerned about language and images, i’d hate to see how u would be if u had to put up with what cate has had to deal with – You’d be shaking in ur boots! Harden up. don’t just say u support the cause, actually do it.
Nix
Thanks for your comment, and for completely misconstruing its intention – I apologise if it was not clear. Like some (not all) who support the cause of women, your remarks have proven my point.
If, by seeking to support your cause, I offer an opinion that is not worded in a manner acceptable to the proponents of that cause, and am rebuked in such a manner, how do you expect other like-minded men to join against this exploitation? Is discussion about the problem not the means by which to draw attention to it?
I was not seeking to ‘hijack’ the conversation, merely voicing an observation that you may choose to accept or dismiss. Simply put, if you already have all the answers, why offer the option for discussion at the end of the article?
Kind regards
I´m a bit curious about it all….why women should never be responsible for their slutish behaviour? why men are always the villains? what kind of freedom we wish if we can´t take responsabilities for anything we do/choose? Caitling has been ofended for opposing this sexist s*,i wonder if any of those w* feel symphath for her.
Nothing will get better if slutish women are not attacked,if feminists love to deffend them and feel sorry for them instead of deffending women who wish to acheive goals through hard work and self-values.
Tired of this feminist hipocrisy
HI Maria,
The reason ‘femininsts’ (there are many subtypes) dont “attack slutish women” is because:
we fight a male-centric culture that pushes women into harmful behaviours, rather than attacking the victims of that culture..
How can we expect women to rise above the bullshit when women are attacked every turn they make for their ‘choices’ (womens choices are far limited compared with mens).
Lets focus our blame on those perpetrating the harm, in this case – men behind the sporting corporations/TV stations
Hi Maria,
You might be right that some of the LFL players may not feel sympathy for Caitlin who has been abused by men on social media. They may even be angry at Caitlin for challenging the Channel 7 broadcast. (important to note, an LFL player did write an open letter, which is linked to above. But she did not engage in abuse of Caitlin) But Caitlin is not only speaking up to defend the LFL players, she is speaking up to defend all women and girls who have to live in a culture that degrades women and girls in this way.
Personally I’m happy to defend people who participate in their own exploitation, even if they do get angry at me.
“Slutish” women? Name calling is never helpful.
Maria, if you understand what sexual exploitation is all about and how it harms women, you would realise that it just doesn’t make sense to attack women who “choose” to participate. They are already under attack by virtue of the fact that they are being exploited. In the case of the LFL, women athletes will not be recognised for their skill, they will be viewed as sexy eye candy for men. They are at risk of injury due to lack of safety equipment, they are not paid. Former players have expressed hope that the League will introduce proper uniforms and then finally they will be recognised for their skill. Former players have also been told they will eventually get paid big money. All of it is a lie.
So why would I add insult to injury by attacking the women?
Instead, it makes much more sense to “attack” those making money off the exploitation of women, including the LFL founder (a man and the only person who gets paid) and Channel 7, which is broadcasting this train wreck. They are the ones in a position of power, they are the ones lying to players and compromising their safety.