Hater Player
June 22, 2010
Stanley Crouch gave me a D on my Jazz midterm in college, and I’ve been in awe ever since. His writing is as infectious as his lectures, so you find yourself agreeing with the man just because he sounds so damn lyrical. In this age of information overload, social commentary can seem insignificant and fleeting, but Crouch zooms out from the here and now. He reminds his reader that no one lives in a vacuum- even something as frivolous as an outfit, and especially the response it garners, is significant.
I happily caught this article he wrote about Venus Williams, and I was immediately fired up.
Who else can come up with the sentence, “Does symbolically showing her ass mean that she has swallowed the radioactive but solid gold fish wet from the bowl of constant attention?” Crouch points out that like many women, Williams has been tricked into believing that provocative clothing is an exercise in empowerment. As a woman, she is demeaning herself, magnified by the fact that she is black. She may defy The White Man and His aesthetic of beauty, but at what cost? (I’d probably get a ‘D’ for that, but luckily I’m not being graded anymore).
Confused? So was I. Scoring in Tennis sounds to me like the teacher in Charlie Brown, but I’m pretty sure that Venus Williams is a formidable tennis player. She doesn’t have to rely on her sex appeal, but she doesn’t deny it either. All the more powerful if you accept Crouch’s assumption that Williams’ beauty is unconventional, or (eek!) threatening (his words, not mine).
Seems like there’s a whole lot more talk around what these ladies wear than how they played. Remember Maria Sharapova’s tuxedo shirt at Wimbledon? Or when Williams was lauded for that Tina Turner number? Oh right, the gold fish wet from the bowl of constant attention.
What’s the girl to do? If you put your body through that much physical exertion every day, why not show it off? I kid, and my guess is that Mr. Crouch would argue, “Because it’s cheap.” She could play tennis in a burka, and probably get as much press. But then, Match Point- The White Man?
I’d like to think Venus is playing the haters, but that’s a hard game to win.
Reminds me of a similar “Michelle Obama” wardrobe fascination. Is it ironic that no one gave a damn about the Bush’s wardrobe?
His war-drobe?
The human being is a social and sensual animal, so it’s not so difficult to imagine that when a talented human is demonstrating their prowness in their art ( whether it be Venus at tennis, Stanley Crouch lecturing or you Julia, doing your craft)ones self confidence can easily start to manifest itself in cocky and provocative behaviour and overtones…
A cheap flash? Maybe… A tongue ‘n cheek response for the haters,…perhaps…but viewers like me, sometimes just enjoy the sensual, yet ethereal moment and then focus back on the substance of the talent at hand.
Remember, not all of us, can look so good, picking up a tennis ball…
Hope to see you on the court someday!
Ciao,
Warren
Besides,..In the end, it’s the substance that brought us to the court in the first place…
Mr. Crouch thinks Venus Williams’ choice of outfit served no good purpose, but did it help Williams’ game? Did it distract her opponent? The umpire? I watched the match, and didn’t give a second thought to what she wore. She certainly played well. Here’s Venus on the controversial outfit: “Lace has never been done before in tennis, and I’ve been wanting to do it for a long time. The illusion of just having bare skin is definitely for me a lot more beautiful.”
Venus 1, Stanley 0.
Stanely Crouch’s quote “Does symbolically showing her ass mean that she has swallowed the radioactive but solid gold fish wet from the bowl of constant attention?” is just clumsy, as was Venus’ choice to wear what I think are either lace or skin coloured under-shorts. The photo of Venus Williams — taken at this years French Open — was an opportune moment for a sleazy photographer to earn some easy cash. I doubt Venus would approve that particular photo to display her outfit. Stanely Crouch is playing the White Man’s game by focusing unnecessary attention on Venus’ attire. Life-time tennis fans like myself, focus on the game style, technique, attitude and personality of the players — clothing choices don’t really get a mention.
Julia, you may be happily surprised to read that tennis is a thinking persons game not to mention a fair game as physical size has very little influence on outcome. Oh, and the same goes for the world game — football, you may know it as soccer. Scoring in tennis is pretty simple really, so give it go sometime. Table tennis also rocks.
Very excited to read you are in season five of Dexter! I own all the dvds and have watched them many times over.
Good Luck in the World Cup!
That is a really good article. I remember the guy from somewhere, but I didnt really know he was a critic. I agree with most of his points, but geez, he does go on. From that outfit, Ive learned so many things that I didnt know, includint the hottentat venus etc. BUt thank god for google. I now know all about Stanley crouch.
GOod luck on Dexter BTW. I know you will be amazing in it!
I was going to ask you about the controversy surrounding the Tony awards but this tennis thing hit a chord. Any athlete is wise to capitalize on his or her good looks and those who complain are probably jealous but…
I do wish we could lay of this obsession with the “White Man”, (I’m feeling mighty picked on here)…I mean, I didn’t know that being a decent human being required me to find a particular girl attractive and no, I wouldn’t find her “threatening” (I’ve heard that word enough times) unless she actually threated me. (which she might after reading this… tee hee)
By the way, Serena has a pretty face, a great personality and a charming voice.
She seems like a very sweet girl, a genuenly nice person.
She’d be a total knock-out if she were not so big in stature…just one man’s opinion.
kim clijsters ftw!
an example of someone who stays herself..
I agree with just about every point you have made but I’m curious.
Personally, I’m against any claims that clothing is ‘empowering’. Well maybe I’m not against it so much as I think that if the clothing/fake physical appearance is what powers a person then they should really sit back and really think about what makes them up. I can walk into a conference room and own the place in a 48 piece suit (maybe a few less pieces) or t-shirt, shorts and a pair of flip flops. The clothing causes no impact on my confidence level.
Ok so now that you know where I stand on this, and I bet you were on the edge of your seat when initially posting just thinking “omg what does Allen think about this”, does your view apply only to provocative clothing?
We are a pretty close age (I’m 30) so I’m pretty sure you are familiar with the rise of grunge. Those are my people. A person could be equally grunge in a suit or in jeans and a t-shirt. Sure the media said that it was all about the flannel but that wasn’t the reality. Grunge style wasn’t a style, it was all about wearing what was necessary for the task at hand and not really focusing on what the clothing “said” about you as a person. Now as a bit of a grunge kid in small and medium size schools I was often stuck with the goth kids and in today’s day I would have been lumped in with the emo kids. These people infuriate me most of all. They put so much effort into their style in order to stand out and then they go about slamming on the “preppy” kids for wearing abercrombie and fitch (a company that I despise btw, see amputee link included at the bottom). These people are both doing the same things and screaming across the sides. Pure hypocrisy and if I step back to your original topic they are trying to be provocative in a different way.
Ok I’ll quit going on about fashion and talk about you for a second. It’s one of the reasons I’m a fan of yours. When I see interviews or the occasional pictures floating about you always seem dressed for the occasion as opposed to dressed for empowerment. This is not what I was talking about before. I’m all for getting gussied up (I’m in Arkansas so get to use the term ‘gussied up’ and going out for a night of being fancy. It’s fun and it’s a break from the norm. But on an average night if I’m going out to dinner or to the pub/club with some friends I’m going to be the t-shirt and jeans guy. Back in San Francisco and LA I was turned away from clubs more than once because the jeans I was wearing didn’t have a brand on them. I just laughed and walked away knowing that that was not a place I would have fun anyway.
Back to my original question, I get sidetracked a bit and I’m a horrible writer so if you have made it this far the congratulations!
Do you put the cutoff for the idea that certain clothing is “an exercise in empowerment” as demeaning at provocative clothing or do you stretch yours into other forms of clothing as empowerment (think goth/emo types)?
And now for the promised links.
First, I’m sure you have heard this about abercrombie and fitch (I still refuse to capitalize their name).
http://current.com/news/90267054_amputee-bullied-out-of-her-job-at-abercrombie-fitch-sues.htm
That girl is smoking hot pure and simple. They fired her because she has a fake arm and they wouldn’t want the impressionable youth to think that was an acceptable form of style.
The second link I have to share comes from a TV show called “ARGGGGG! It’s the Mr Hell Show”, a sketch comedy cartoon show that is awesome. This is the theme song for one of the sketches with Surge the Fashion Seal of Death. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llks4FaEtE0
I just read this article by Dr. Leonard Sax on girls and self-image. It’s quite an eye-opener, and not in a good way.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/03/gender-expert-leonard-sax-on-the-empty-world-of-girls-impressing-each-other-with-sex-booze-and-facebook%E2%80%94while-parents-opt-out/
Reminds me of my media studies professors at NYU
I daresay Mr. Crouch is contradicting himself a little. Venus is by her dress neither “empowered” nor “a ho” – as Mr. Crouch implies, her outfit is a two-way conversation. She is inviting us into a call and response – a dialog.
Why do we watch men and women play tennis? It is a physical spectacle, like a dance or a circus. We exult in the exertion of the players’ bodies, as much as in the cerebral aspects of the game… so why not explore that? If the players were nude, we would quickly lose interest – it is the very suggestiveness of Venus, her toying with our self-imposed boundaries, that we find alluring. In the end, it’s not so much about her ass, but about her call to class.
My God, this post has gotten under my skin!
Please define “haters”.
I myself have heard it defined as everything from those
who are just out and out bigots (reasonable enough) to
those who simply disagree with a particular stance taken
by President Obama.
I think I’ll down a half pint of scotch now an mellow out.
On second though, given the weather, make that rum.
The expression usually is “player hater.” Someone who is a hater is just jealous of the person actually doing something. But the twist on the phrase comes from a Mos Def song, I guess meaning someone who is messing with the hater.
My take: men rule the world and men like to see women dressed provocatively. Women go along in order to get along and tell themselves what they may. Or at least some women do.
I read the article and in truth I just saw it as a publicity stunt not to show female, sexual or racial empowerment but to showcase her own branded EleVen clothing range. With the match being played in France, the outfit played up to the national stereotypes enough to cue “Ohh La La” headlines and give her brand free publicity on the world stage. I don’t think for one minute it was done with any sexual, racial or gender undertones involved. Maybe she just needs to shift the summer collection, who knows?
Haven’t finally watched, “A Walk to Beautiful” (Nova) I was already fired up about how far we are from being seen as equally human by a large percentage of men (easy there, not ALL men).
When I read a man claiming a woman has demeaned herself, it’s clear that he assumes his opinion is the right, superior one, and so important it deserves being published. Perhaps this man should look to his own need for attention.
Why is it that in western Europe, particularly France, Italy and Spain, maybe even the UK, when a woman dresses in a sexy complimentary fashion she is admired as whole. Men and other women find them beautiful inside and out. In Europe women tend to comfortably emote sex appeal, intelligence, power, and respect without degrading comments from admiring men. Here in the USA when a woman emotes sex appeal even in a small way she is usually labeled a slut, whore, bitch, etc…This is so absurdly wrong is so implanted in the US’s foundation as a puritan society and the male dominated capitalistic structure. Can’t American men just admire a woman’s beauty as a whole when women in their feminine instincts want to show themselves in an attractive way. We can compliment the inside brains and feelings and the outside beauty as well all at the same time.
I think American has such a long way to go in it’s failed atmosphere of reciprocity between the sexes. Having lived in Europe I found that these labels and criticisms were practically non existent and both men and women deal with sexual flattery in a healthy way.
As for Venus’s outfit, she was being bold, in the somewhat stuck up conservative world of tennis. “Power to the People”.
I also once saw Stanley Crouch give a spoken word story at The Moth here in NYC. He was very funny. In this instance he was trying to be funny and was not.
I think that the cultural changes that Crouch is criticizing have taken their most extreme form in Italy. The following two articles give an indication:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97402636
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/20/berlusconi-italian-women-sexism
I would explain the problems with “raunch culture” this way. Even in countries that are pretty relaxed about nudity, it is not normal practice for female office workers to show up for work wearing only high heels and a g-string. One reason for this is undoubtedly that the spectacle would divert attention away from work-related responsibilities. I believe that this fact of office life points to a broader principle. Scantily clad females are indeed glorious to behold, but that very fact means that a culture that places great emphasis on female sexual display tends to notice and value non-visual characteristics of women less.
It’s interesting that we can dissect an entire society based on the wardrobe of a tennis player. I believe Venus Williams will be remembered- deservedly- as a great tennis player. Her fashion choices will be a secondary consideration. This is a fun little mental exercise and it gets everyone to make a careful reflection of themselves. But, in the end, we need to be careful about accepting generalizations about others as fact, the trap that Stanley Crouch’s piece seemed to be laying out for us.
Unless, you weren’t saying that Stanley was the hater-player, Julia. You weren’t, right? Oh, crap.
The underlying reference to the Minstrel Show is quite fascinating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minstrel_show). I was reading it more in mind of the European bard. But the “red-carpet meat rack” comment is engaging. Summing up with a very interesting conclusion/suggestion when referencing class personified by Horne and Hepburn (of course it is not Katherine but Katharine) “That was always quite obvious: the only ass they were going to see was right there ready to be kissed if they could ever get close enough. And that was not going to happen.” this had me falling out of my chair.
Personally I do not find pleasure in such outfits for sports for many reasons ranging from why do I care to see that, to the parental point of view and children. What exactly are the rules for the tennis outfit, other sports (individual/team) impose them. Intention is a fine but grey line…………
To keep your character intact you cannot stoop to filthy acts. It makes it easier to stoop the next time. – Katharine Hepburn
Thanks for sharing the article, intriguing stuff.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/mount_olive_schools_superinten.html
Hmmm…men rule the world…and that’s a problem because???
Face it people, men are the same throughout the world, we’re all
animals…what can I say…ya gotta love us…
Aren’t women animals too? Following that logic…?
Julia, women too are in deed animals! More balanced animals in comparison perhaps, much more emotionally aware than their counterparts for the most part and generally less inclined to needless aggression and violence, like us men.
Mark is right, however, we men rule the world, which probably explains why it’s in such a sorry state.
Perhaps men are animals and women are creatures.
I don’t know about the state of the rest of this world, as long as my little piece of it is pleasant enough I’m good…
“Does symbolically showing her ass mean that she has swallowed the radioactive but solid gold fish wet from the bowl of constant attention?”
I couldn’t help but to think… isn’t he also calling for attention by creating controversy over a matter that has absolutely nothing to do with him? I believe so.
“Williams has been tricked into believing that provocative clothing is an exercise in empowerment. As a woman, she is demeaning herself, magnified by the fact that she is black.”
Ok, ok, let’s analyze this slowly…
Provocative clothing… What makes any kind of clothing provocative? I believe it’s the eye of the beholder that makes anything visually (sexually) provocative. What would happen to Mr. Crouch’s stereotypes if he would find himself walking around, say, natives in the amazon? Most likely, women would be nearly naked, but that would not be provocative cause it serves the purpose of fighting temperature, right? Please… Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, exactly the same as visual provocation.
“An exercise of empowerment”. This would appear to be related to the ability (or lack of) to control one’s basic instincts… In this case, power comes from the position where, according to him, she is “offering” her body, appealing to his instincts, and by controlling when to give it, she would gain power.
Mr. Crouch, by learning how to control your urges, you would be denying such power. But then… what would you write about?
“She is demeaning herself”. Beauty would not be such if it was not beheld. Please go tell the likes of MichaelAngelo, Leonardo, Bernini, etc to conceal any female bodies that have been classified as art because they are demeaning women…
Last, but not least, what has black to do with this??
A female body, exposed or concealed, dressed or naked, is a female body, regardless of the color of the skin.
I’m wondering if it would have been a Russian player, Mr Crouch would have said “magnified by the fact that she is from a communist country.”.
Is he really getting paid to write these things?
You took a class by THE Stanley Crouch? Wow, I’m impressed!
I would probably go nuts in that class though. I was a vocal member of the just-jazz email group for years and had my share of flame wars with the educational bourgeoisie. I argued with Berklee professors over jazz origin myths and had college professors mocking me publicly over my opinions.
I take a more radical approach in the footsteps of pioneers like Barry Harris who discovered an entirely different approach to harmony.
I also believe that rejecting certain styles of music (e.g. Crouch rejects most hip-hop, free jazz and fusion) is more a symptom of the listener than the music itself.
Carl Jung said it best when he said that the first step to individuation is when we stop asking what we like and start asking why we like it.
I’m sure Crouch has 1001 reasons why he likes the Wynton Marsalis style of “politically correct” jazz, and that’s OK. But I prefer to have wider ears.
I was a jazz and electronic music snob for years. Now I listen to indie, punk, you name it. I’ve just been unabashedly geeking out on Beach Boys’ masterpiece “Pet Sounds” for days now. And I put “What’s Going On” by Marvin Gaye on par with Coltrane’s “Love Supreme” and Cannonball’s “Somethin’ Else.”
As human beings on this planet, we get the most bliss from having the widest ears. If our raison d’etre is evolving our soul, then shouldn’t we open our hearts and minds to as much of the world as we can stand?