Lindsey Vonn's Sports Illustrated Cover: Sexist or Sporty? Two NEWSWEEK Writers Discuss.

On Friday, NEWSWEEK’s Sarah Ball and Kate Dailey discussed the controversy over the Lindsey Vonn Sports Illustrated cover as part of a rapid-fire roundtable discussion on Tumblr. Excerpts from their discussion (cleaned up a bit, now that we’ve had time to spell-check) are posted here. To read the entire debate—and comment on the opinions expressed—visit NEWSWEEK's Tumblr page or click here.

Dailey: So this is what we’re talking about today:

Is this photo sexist, or is everyone who says it is a hysterical buzzkill who needs to get a grip? You can make the argument—and Lord knows, people have—that this is a stylized image of a very common sports pose. Vonn is a skier, and this is what skiers do. But at the same time, you have to consider that these images don’t exist in vacuums—and when people who question this image raise their voices, they do so taking into account everything else they know about women athletes, women on magazine covers, and the seriousness which is paid to women’s sports. Of all the ski positions, the one that makes the cover is the one in which Vonn’s (super-strong, impressive) glutes are shoved over the masthead? Considering that women are on only 4 percent of SI covers, why does this one, intentionally or otherwise, have to resemble something like this?

Ball: Right you are—this is a head-scratcher. On the one hand, I’m all, “Get it, girl.” If I were a world-class American athlete and as comfortable in my skin-dex as is Vonn, I think I’d want to flaunt it.  And she looks great: muscular, buff, dynamic, feminine.  On the other, what I get most from this cover is strains of Lil Jon.

Dailey: There are plenty of well-intentioned people who see this cover and don’t think twice, and there are people like you and I who did a double take. It’s not imagining things to notice that this position echoes sexualized magazine covers. It’s not imagining things to discuss why we feel conflicted or uncomfortable with this image. Trying to write off that discomfort as fake or invalid is not a useful rhetorical exercise. Asking Lindsey how she feels [about the cover] doesn’t really speak to that point: you, and I, and everyone else who has a reaction to this cover are discussing how we feel, and those feelings aren’t invalid just because we’re not famous skiers.

Ball: Like it or not, we know this is what SI does—you have to “endure” the empty calories (Danica Patrick in a sequin bikini) to get the vitamins (Gary Smith on soccer-playing war refugees).  I expect this kind of “Extra Mustard” bulls--t from them. I’m more heated that there isn’t a February “rebuttal” cover out there from the major women’s sports/fitness magazines.

Look at Jessica Alba on the cover of Self:

She’s sitting on a couch in some corduroys, and in the inside interview, talks about how she hates working out. Vonn makes the magazine, but only to provide a two-sentence tip on (Self’s words here) getting “a gold-medal-worthy body.” A “back-buffing” medicine-ball maneuver ensues. Neither Shape nor Women’s Health picks up the slack—they’re featuring Katherine McPhee (?) and Pink, respectively, on their covers this month. Dude(tte)s!  Jessica Alba has a new movie every six months.  The chance to put awesome stuff like this on your cover comes once every four years, if that—Team USA boasts medal-contending Winter Games women, like, never.

So in some ways, maybe I’m on board with SI. (Flinching for the Dailey backhand).  I’m rolling my eyes at the downward-facing-doggie-style business on the cover, but hell, yes, she is America’s Best Woman Skier Ever (the headline). Hell, yes, she is worthy of a five-page feature. And hell, yes, that double-truck action photo inside is totally badass. It’s just a bummer it’s not the cover.

Dailey: Listen, lady—I’m not interested in beating anyone down for siding with Team SI, as long as they get there from an intellectually honest place. I’m always happy when people look at images critically, work through the possible intentional and unintentional messages, and—understanding all of that, and how the image can, intentionally or unintentionally, impact different groups of people—come to a decision that’s more than just knee-jerk identity politics.

What makes me angry is that when women register problems with this picture, the reaction is to shout them down, tell them they missed the point, shame them into shutting up. It’s worth discussing why some people (since not all the critics of this photo are women) have problems with this photo, and looking at how that reflects on the culture as a whole.

If we lived in a world where female athletes, even the ones that aren’t leggy and blonde and gorgeous, graced the covers of magazines all the time in a variety of athletic positions, this picture wouldn’t seem so egregious. If women weren’t constantly sexualized and objectified in ads and art and other forms of media, maybe this ad wouldn’t have stuck out. But it did, and there’s value in discussing why.

Ball:  Agreed. I can rationalize away the “video ho” vibes, because of what female athlete coverage does For The Greater Good. But as our buddy Simon Pegg reminds us, FTGG is a liberally applied and hollow refrain, used to justify . . .  well, in his case, mass murder.

In my personal analysis-paralysis, it’s a matter of meting out the more egregious act: the radio silence of women’s magazines, or the mixed messages of a (primarily) men’s magazine.

What’s best for everybody?  Vonn on the podium.  Preferably standing up.